[Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and Principles

[Kaliya *]

I think another thing is that Tier one projects are incubator projects they
grow and emerge to become Tier 2.

they are places for conversation - for figuring out shared language,
understanding, meaning - issues/solutions.

They are working on some of the social issues and need to figure out where
they 'go' in terms of support and funding - these social/legal concerns are
critical if any of the 'code/standards' are going to fly.

Continuing the conversation - extending into the next conversation in this
thread re: Teir 2 is that there are some core business functions that as
groups mature they need. These are things that businesses pay industry
associations 'to do' for them - because they are collective needs.

Paul was talking about the conversation at a Project VRM meeting listing the
'needs' that organizations have - there was a list of over 10 things. I
think that list is a starting point to figure out what 'services' would be
good to provide if there was resources to provide them and if  the 10+
groups reaching maturity and forming their own 'org's - it is in the basic
services that there is redundancy.


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?

I think a starting point in this list of questions is the last two.

I know why DP is not a working group - because they fundamanetlaly saw us as
a 'uber - org' into which they would be subsumed and did not get that you
could both belong and be  independent/autonomous - that is was about a
community more then a top down group that would 'control them'

I think the last 3 questions are good starting points.  How can IC provide
services to those groups so they all benifit.  What can we do in the next
month to help them meet their needs? How can what they do bring in resources
to help IC help them meet their needs?
The first two questions - how can OID and ICF both potentially collaborate
through IC to have core services provided.

As for why not for Liberty Alliance - you will have to share that answer
with us Brett.

I think one of the things we are going through - with the technology
collaboration tools is that we can now 'organize' for far less overhead.
Clay Shirky's book talks about this - the subtitle is the "Power of
Organizing without Organizations" what we have done with IC is be 'organized
in a super loose organization' one that would not have been possible really
5 years ago - AND with the groups and energy around it we need to have a
path that helps the community stay connected, grow, collaborate, solve
problems and innvoate together AND does not have 'power' controlled in
center of corporate board members who are "managing" conflict and "decision
making"  AND supports the people who want to do work together - who have
raised money from corprate entities that want to work in common onc certain
focused projects.

I would like to propose that when we get together face to face we use Value
Network Mapping http://www.value-networks.com/ to figure out the implicit
and explicit value flows in the community - along with where we see them
needing to evolve/get resourced.  What are the roles in the community, what
are the contractual deliverables, where is money flowing, where is
information flowing how are the implicit value flows moving and how does it
all fit together.

I also think Polarity Management Mapping
http://www.polaritymanagement.com/can help us understand the tensions
we are engaging with and how to navigate
them so we are can get the best of out of having parts/groups that thrive
and do goo work and a whole/commons/shared space that helps the group work
be coherent and connected.

In the new ways of being in an network this does not have to be in a 'top
down' management way it can be in other ways - that we are already doing and
we can continue to improve their effectiveness and  get explicit about the
value they are delivering in helping the whole community and the projects
function.

I think this is a good discussion.
=Kaliya
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/attachments/20080628/9bc38168/attachment.htm