[Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and Principles

Brett McDowell brett at projectliberty.org
Mon Jun 30 08:48:14 PDT 2008 

Warning... we might still be having a problem with this mailing list.   
I received Dave's reply to Dennis but I never received Dennis'  
message.  I'll assume Dave copied all of Dennis' email and will  
respond inline below.


On Jun 30, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Dave Kearns wrote:

> +1
>
> -dave
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: community-bounces at idcommons.net
>> [mailto:community-bounces at idcommons.net]On Behalf Of Dennis E.  
>> Hamilton
>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 8:01 AM
>> To: community at idcommons.net
>> Subject: Re: [Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and
>> Principles
>>
>>
>> As an interested bystander, I find the "NewOrg" rhetorical device  
>> very
>> unsettling.

I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to unsettle anyone.

>>  This is particularly a concern since no real,
>> concrete case of
>> someone finding themselves unable to work with Identity Commons as  
>> it is
>> constituted and under its purpose and policies has been put
>> forth.

I think I named no less than six precise examples.  The problem is not  
whether an existing project can or is willing to fill out a charter  
and get the stamp of approval from Identity Commons as a formal WG/ 
AG... there are many problems but perhaps the obvious one to grok is  
the problem that these projects are all incorporating separately and  
duplicating operational overhead at the cost of their members/ 
sponsors.  Identity Commons has theoretically been formed (at least IC  
2.0) to remove this need from any one project's critical path.


>>  Also, I
>> don't know that anyone else is thinking in terms of a speculative
>> "NewOrg."

Anyone else other than all the folks who have chimed in so far in  
favor of this exercise?  Isn't that enough to have a discussion  
without being asked to stop talking about it?  Maybe I'm  
misinterpreting you but I think you are asking us to stop talking  
about this.

>>
>> This abstract speculation strikes me as unhealthy.

If you've had a chance to read the full thread I think you will have  
noticed that we are collecting requirements and use cases, not having  
an abstract speculative conversation.

>>
>>
>> Please provide a real case or,

I think I have.  I've put forward EUCLId already as a T1 case.  I can  
come up with T2 and T3 cases, oh I already have.  I have suggested  
that Liberty might see its Expert Groups as T2's and OpenID or ICF  
might see their projects as T3 cases.  So maybe that is inappropriate  
since I am speculating, but I'm close enough to all of these projects  
to make such speculations in the interest of optimizing their ability  
to succeed.

I've said more than once that my assumptions or speculations are  
subject to being refuted by board members of those projects and I  
stand by that.  By all means, if an OIDF, ICF, or Liberty Board member  
reads this and thinks I'm mischaracterizing anything I would hope they  
would clarify that with me... really (since I know many of them  
personally I'm sure they will know I am not mischaracterizing anything  
deliberately and they'll know that I'll take their correction as  
positive criticism)!  I'm doing the best I can to be empathetic with  
this bootstrap effort but I'm not omniscient... if someone can tighten  
up or clarify or change the requirements assumptions I hope they jump  
in and do exactly that.


>> if that is inappropriate, have someone with
>> the real case approach the executives of Identity Commons and
>> find out what
>> is real here.

Again, are you suggesting we stop talking about this as a community  
and move the conversation behind closed doors with "executives" of  
Identity Commons?

>>
>>
>> Finally, I see tacit assumption that there is a problem that
>> availability of
>> resources would solve.  Rather than start with the solution,  
>> perhaps we
>> should figure out what the real problems are?

See my comment above pointing out that this discussion is focused on  
requirements gathering as step one.

>>
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: I note in terms of what NewOrg financial support "buys" is
>> exactly what
>> it buys at OASIS and W3C and every other consortium (including in  
>> multiple
>> degrees Liberty Alliance) along with maybe too much exclusive/private
>> activity.  Why the urge to become another one of those?

Do you see OASIS and W3C as the same kind of organization that OIDF  
and ICF are?  If yes, do you see OIDF and ICF as different from IC in  
any important way that you want to ensure IC doesn't become?  I'm  
assuming that this IC community has already embraced OIDF and ICF as  
good models for getting things done in this space.

P.S.
Dennis, since your last email didn't reach me would you include me  
explicitly when you reply just so I am sure to see your reply?

>>
>>
>> Dennis E. Hamilton
>> ------------------
>> NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability
>> mailto:Dennis.Hamilton at acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430
>> http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/2008-June/001423.html
>> From: Brett McDowell
>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 07:13
>> To: Drummond Reed
>> Cc: community at idcommons.net
>> Subject: Re: [Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and
>> Principles
>>
>> [ ... ]
>> I can't tell if these comments are being made in the context of
>> promoting public discussion (like what we are doing here now) or if
>> this is really about NewOrg have a strong branding strategy for  
>> itself
>> as part of its mission
>>
>> [ ... ]
>> I'm looking
>> at creating a recognition between projects based on resource
>> consumption.  If we ignore this distinction we are right back to  
>> where
>> we started in terms of lacking the resources we need to meet the  
>> needs
>> of the community.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>> More specifically, I like what I see OIDF doing with their $ model...
>> there's a notion of membership but the only thing "buying" a
>> membership actually "buys" you is branding recognition and a vote on
>> the ratification of final ouput (correct me if I'm wrong!).  Loosely
>> translated, this is a hybrid innovation between traditional "pay-to-
>> play" membership models and the "charitable donation" model that IC
>> and DP have been looking at.  If you don't pay, you still play fully
>> with one (arguably minimal) exception... the final ratification of
>> output (but you do get to vote in the small groups who produce the
>> output).  What do folks think of this model being adopted as a core
>> best practice for NewOrg?
>>
>> [ ... ]
>> I think a best practice is for NewOrg to liaise/network
>> with pre-existing communities/org's who specialize in those areas vs.
>> make (any) attempts to reinvent the wheel and pass of NewOrg as the
>> subject-matter-experts in those social areas.  I think our special
>> sauce will be in the harmonization/interoperability/rationalization  
>> of
>> social issues, regulatory/legal issues, and technology issues as they
>> are applied to digital identity.
>>
>> [ ... ] They may require any number of other "a la
>> carte" services from NewOrg as well (back to that list Paul built and
>> some of the brainstorming we've done on this thread so far).
>>
>> [ ... ]
>> It may be so advantageous to remain a T2 Project that
>> some folks (Liberty for instance) would prefer to operate its  
>> multiple
>> projects as T2 projects leaving the branding strategy and marketing
>> investments to NewOrg vs. taking on the cost and complexity of
>> managing all of that themselves.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>> So, let's start looking at the list of requirements we have  
>> collected,
>> [...] and shift our attention
>> to how to pay for all of these services (with the going-in assumption
>> that if you consume more form NewOrg, you somehow contribute more to
>> NewOrg but in a manner that reduces your cost through leveraging
>> shared investments and resources across the entire community).
>>
>> Eventually (which might be sooner than later) we'll get to branding  
>> of
>> NewOrg but let's save that to last.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community mailing list
>> Community at idcommons.net
>> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at idcommons.net
> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community

More information about the Community mailing list