[Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and Principles

[Brett McDowell]

Mary, well put.  Good additions.  Thanks.

On Jun 28, 2008, at 2:42 PM, Mary Ruddy wrote:

>
> This is Mary, now back from The Catalyst conference where, as  
> Drummond said,
> we had a lot of  conversations about making the right things happen  
> with
> respect to our overall community.
>
> To the "tier 1" List below, I would also add,
>
> 1) Some visibility to the existence of the group so that like minded  
> and
> interested individuals can more easily find it without it needing to  
> mount a
> separate marketing effort, and so that others seeing a similar need  
> won't
> create a duplicative organization.  This is done, by belonging to a  
> larger
> organization that has a website, issues quarterly reports,  
> publically refers
> to examples of its groups etc.
> 2) Parent organization with an appropriate reputation so that a  
> lightly
> formed group has credibility or at least the benefit of the doubt at
> startup.
>
> -Mary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: community-bounces at idcommons.net
> [mailto:community-bounces at idcommons.net] On Behalf Of Brett McDowell
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:27 PM
> To: Iain Henderson
> Cc: ID Commons---Community Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and  
> Principles
>
> On Jun 28, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Iain Henderson wrote:
>
>> I'll be at the VRM face to face and would welcome the discussion; but
>> many folks won't be there so could be good to iterate further on the
>> e-mail list?
>>
>> Iain
>
> Ok.  So, since most of us here are comfortable with how to develop a  
> good
> technology, let's borrow those best practices to guide this effort,  
> i.e.
> let's start with requirements and use-cases.
>
> I'd say Projects come in different flavors, let's refer to them as  
> "tiers".
>
> A "tier 1" project would require no more than what ID Commons WG's  
> offer
> today, which is the same thing Liberty Alliance SIG's offer, and the  
> same
> thing that DataPortability "labs" offer.  It's basically just:
> - email list
> - wiki
> - various opportunities (without mandate) to gather in person, at  
> your own
> expense (including a reg. fee)
> - copyright license (CreativeCommons)
>
> So, is that about accurate?  Before I go on to "tier 2" projects I  
> want to
> see that we are in basic agreement with "tier 1".  Did I miss  
> something in
> the requirements for a "tier 1" project?
>
> We also need some examples of "tier 1" (T1) projects so we keep  
> ourselves
> honest.  I'd say my EUCLId ID Commons Working Group (now
> defunct) was a T1 Project... the goal was discussion, information  
> material
> generation (non-normative) and advocacy.  It never had the goal of  
> producing
> normative specification so it didn't need an IP policy that addressed
> patents.  It didn't need to produce code so it didn't need source code
> management or a contributors license agreement.  It didn't need any
> staffing... well maybe it did which is why it is now defunct.  It  
> didn't
> need its own brand, but maybe it would have down the road.  It  
> didn't need
> any professional compliance program to ensure its output was  
> implemented
> correctly, because it had not normative output.  etc.  (you can see  
> where
> I'm going with this...
> higher tier projects need these other things and a financial model to
> provide them... if they consolidate they get the best of all worlds  
> through
> shared resources and infrastructure)
>
> --Brett
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at idcommons.net
> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community
>
>
>