> I noticed the mission statement last night: "Designing, Implementing
> and Evangelizing the Personal Data Portability Stack in Concrete
> Terms". Seems like a bit of a paradox to me. Nothing in that statement
> fits my expectation of 'concrete terms', and the scope of this effort
> is just not possible. This is not a 'mission', It's a 'mission:
> impossible'.

> I am not sure subscribing to this list makes me an official member of
> Data Portability (in the same way Google, Plaxo, and Facebook are now
> members), but that was not my intention when I subscribed. I am not
> saying that I will not be a member, but I can't be a member of
> something I don't understand. At all. It is possible it's just me - I
> am open to that conclusion.

> After a couple of week of following the discussions in this group, I
> still have little idea of what this group it about. Not because it is
> not posted, or hard to find. The Data Portability Workgroup is trying
> to be everything to everyone. This is not meant as a dig against
> anyone in particular. This group has been created with nothing but
> good intentions, and has an impressive roster of talented individuals.
> I have a lot of respect to the work Chris Saad and others put into
> this. But I can't see how it can possibly be successful.

> If you want to know my general philosophy on how to fix this effort,
> you can read my recent post Reflections on the Open Web Community
> (http://www.hueniverse.com/hueniverse/2007/12/reflections-of.html). So
> far, this effort does not score high on my top 10 rules for successful
> projects. In fact, it flat-out fails.

> It is not practical to expect the same group of people to write specs,
> implementations, do public relations, and negotiate political deals.
> Just from a legal standpoint, this is not going to work out. Take a
> look at each one of the components on the front page of
> dataportablility.org. Each took years of design and implementation
> cycles. And some of those groups will not talk to one another.

> Personally, I am working on technologies that I hope will make some of
> what people here have been talking about a reality. I am proud to be
> part of the OAuth Core group, and am having lots of fun working on
> OAuth Discovery and the new XRDS-Simple initiative. I am also working
> on getting OpenID email identifiers. Each one of these efforts have
> very narrow and specific objective. I know what I am doing, what
> resources I need, and a good idea of how to go about it.

> Using my 10 rules (really 9), can we perhaps start with a discussion
> on what we are all here for and how we are going to accomplish it?

> 1. What are we trying to solve in a single sentence? And it has to be
> simple enough for regular social network users to understand. What is
> the elevator pitch? Can we list some real-world use cases? Stuff we
> can get users interested in? What is the most important task? What's
> first?
> 2. Do we have the right people? We got a mix of developers,
> philosophers, evangelists, press, and corporate reps. I'll take the
> position that it's not possible we can all be productive here. So what
> is the profile of a valuable member? So far, it seems like name
> recognition is key.
> 3. Is it easy for the right people to join? Seems like we have a
> website, a public group, a private group, and some documents, but I
> for one can't figure out what it is I am expected to do. Where do
> people join? Do you have to be invited? It is perfectly fine (and
> actually preferred) to have strict rules about participation but they
> must be in the open.
> 4. Who are the core members? Who gets to decide when there isn't an
> obvious consensus? Who decided what technologies are already listed?
> 5. Are there any deadlines? If I decide to be part of this, how long
> should I expect this to go on?

> The rest of my rules: don't branch out too soon, grow organically,
> start with an accomplishment, and don't be afraid to end a project,
> are more of a guideline than a question (and it's a little late for
> them anyway). I would just say that starting with an accomplishment is
> desperately needed. And no, getting people to join an online group
> isn't much. Not until they start talking. Of the 4 big announced
> members, Google, Plaxo, Facebook, and Scoble, only Joseph from Plaxo
> wrote an introduction. And he is the one we need to learn the least
> about. If you don't know what Plaxo and Joseph Smarr believe in, you
> are in the wrong group. It is not a good sign when there is more PR
> activity in blogs about this group than actual activity in the group.

> There is a great opportunity here, but there is also a price to pay if
> it is missed. The damage from failing getting something out of this
> effort will make it much harder for others to start new initiatives in
> this space. Now is the time to get it right.

> EHL