[Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and Principles

[Eugene Eric Kim]

Hi Dennis,

On 6/28/08, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton at acm.org> wrote:
> [Side note: Brett's message does not appear on the archive, which has me
> believe that it bounced or failed a sender check.  The reason Drummond and
> EEK have responded is they received the message directly.  One tip: I have
> found that listservers behave better if they are the only addressee in the
> To:, with the non-list addressees kept in the Cc.  This is one of those
> green-socks superstitions of mine, but I claim it works.  If it doesn't this
> time, I will have to check with my astrologer.  I predict that the CC-ed
> folk will receive two copies.]

Brett's original message did come through, and it is in the archives:

http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/2008-June/001392.html

> Having said that, I don't understand why any specialized group, consortium,
> or whatever, couldn't happily organize itself underneath Identity Commons.
> I am curious why some higher-level absorption is needed unless it is for
> branding and governance.  I am particularly keen to know what is seen to be
> an impediment to simply coming under Identity Commons.

I'm curious about this as well.  We're waiting for Brett to suggest
why this might be the case.

> Since I looked at the Purpose and Principles, I was struck by a missing
> practice.  I suspect it will be seen as too formal.  I mention it anyhow.
> It would be useful, when a working group is created, especially one with
> some focused purpose and a tangible work product, that there be some
> declaration of how adherence to the principles is to be demonstrated and
> accounted for.  This is under the rubric of creating measures (not
> necessarily quantitative ones) that can be demonstrated and
> inspected/audited for.

This is in fact an institutionalized practice. Proposed Working Groups
must put together a charter that must conform to our Purpose and
Principles.  The Stewards Council reviews these charters for
conformance before voting on them.

> PS: In reviewing the thread of this discussion, I notice that it is very
> abstract and speculative.  I think it would be better to deal with a
> concrete case where there is some organization or business that wants to tie
> in somehow.  A grounded case involving someone with serious interest would
> be far more useful and easier to assess, too.

I think Brett's intention was to gauge interest before getting
concrete. And I think there's clear interest.

=Eugene

-- 
======================================================================
Eugene Eric Kim ................................ http://xri.net/=eekim
Blue Oxen Associates ........................ http://www.blueoxen.com/
======================================================================