[Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and Principles

[Brett McDowell]

See below...
On Jun 28, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote:

>
>> 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.

Well, why don't they today?  Why did OpenID Foundation form?  Why did  
InfoCard Foundation Form?  Why isn't Liberty Alliance a Working Group  
of Identity Commons?  Why isn't Concordia a Working Group of Identity  
Commons?  Why isn't Data Portability a Working Group of Identity  
Commons?  Why is OpenSocial Foundation forming independently?  Why is  
OSIS looking for a new way of articulating its relationship with  
Identity Commons that makes it look less like a "working group of"?   
Why is Project VRM looking to form its own organization?

The answer to all my questions is the answer to yours.  Simply this,  
Identity Commons doesn't provide "enough" support or opportunity for  
success to its Working Groups/Action Groups.  That plus a smaller  
portion of brand and reputation I believe is the full answer.  In  
other words, Identity Commons is well known for what it is so if what  
the community needs is something a bit different they are already  
assuming Identity Commons isn't the place to look.  It isn't a bad  
reputation, it's just an accurate reputation, i.e. it is the Open  
Space/Un-Organization as Drummond and Kaliya put it.
>
>
>> 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.

Yes, gauging interest.  I'm glad to see we have good level of it.  Now  
for details.  As Drummond suggested a F2F discussion at the VRM event  
might be a good next step, but I'm open to keeping the email thread  
active until then as well.  What would folks prefer?