[Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and Principles

[Brett McDowell]

> And, to avoid my repeating the same things only louder, I will stop  
> here.

I guess that's where I'm at with this specific back-and-forth at this  
point too.  I don't know how to respond without repeating myself.   
Maybe we'd connect better if this were face-to-face, but as it stands  
I think we are talking past each other.  Any chance you are attending  
the VRM event in Boston in July?

Other than this side-trip between Brett and Dennis I think we are at  
the point of discussing "NEXT STEPS" on this thread.  I think folks  
might need some time to chew on that before we can expect responses (I  
only sent it out this morning).

-- Brett

On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> 1. Mailing-list problems.  I see that all of the relevant posts are  
> on the
> list server archive, so it may be that there is some filter kicking in
> elsewhere.  I will copy Brett, as requested.
>
> 2. Dave did include my entire note.  Here are my additions/responses  
> (none
> are in-line).
>
> 3. Concreteness.  We have different ideas about specificity and real  
> cases.
> I am wondering where is someone, right now, who would align with  
> Identity
> Commons (or a NewOrg) and would state what their conditions of  
> satisfaction
> (including support) are for doing so, along with their willingness  
> to align
> with the Identity Commons purpose and principles.  I'm asking who is a
> serious prospect.  I have read the full thread since Brett's June 26  
> note
> (that is actually not on the archive), and note that the only other  
> post, on
> June 5, does raise the support issue:
> http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/2008-June/001392.html
> Is it necessary to go back farther?  I notice that the replies to  
> that also
> discussed concreteness, specific steps, and staying true to the  
> purpose of
> Identity Commons.
>
> 4. Discussion Here.  My comment about talking privately to  
> executives of
> Identity Commons was not about us shutting up.  In my experience,  
> someone
> with serious concerns and money to spend (or support to plea for)  
> might not
> want to air that here.  It depends on the nature of their concerns,  
> and I am
> ignorant of those, but it seemed like a way that some parties would  
> prefer
> to operate, at least for testing the waters.  I am not asking anyone  
> to stop
> talking about this.  My recommendation is that the conversation be  
> made more
> concrete, less abstract, less anecdotal (although I just spoke  
> abstractly
> and anecdotally, so shoot me).
>
> 5. For me, "gathering requirements" carries a tacit and untested  
> assumption
> that this is a desired direction to explore.  I think opportunity
> identification and visualization would be a better place to stand.   
> This
> open discussion is a good way to sort that out.
>
> And, to avoid my repeating the same things only louder, I will stop  
> here.
>
> - Dennis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/2008-June/001426.html
> From: Brett McDowell
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 08:48
> To: dkearns at vquill.com
> Cc: community at idcommons.net
> Subject: Re: [Community] Preserving Identity Commons Purpose and  
> Principles
>
> 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:
> [...]
>>> -----Original Message-----
> http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/2008-June/001424.html
>>> From: ... 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
> [ ... ]
>
>>> 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.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>> 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.
>
> [ ... ]
>