Dear All,

This is a thoughtful piece - http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/05/11/thoughts-on-dataportability/
and raised several valid points.. in particular, I'd strongly echo with the ATOM mention, and
note of "the powers that be" mention.. that's, presumably, us?

Not that we should or could do it better.. but how things are presented, particularly things that
are tagged official, or look pretty official, deserves some tighter scrutiny... eg, tumblr as the
*official* blog, just as an example.

Regards,
Aaron.

It is a great post indeed Aaron,

I have a personal response here:
http://chrissaad.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/responses-to-dataportabilit...

Chris

--
Chris Saad

FaradayMedia - For Audiences of One
Particls - Are You Paying Attention?
Engagd - The Open Attention Platform
Media 2.0 Workgroup - Social, Democratic, Distributed
APML - Your Attention Profile
DataPortability - Connect, Control, Share, Remix

Chris, thanks for the note.. and the thoughts would certainly raise other related questions like, other than ATOM, how about OpenSocial, for example.. which would be more like a topic for another group.. Regards, Aaron.

Aaron Cheung <a...@ydrive.com> Mon, 12 May 2008 14:45:20

This particular bit of the debate is not about whether other standards
or communities are useful to data portability. It's about which logos
make it onto the home page. Close to the home page there really needs to
be 3 lists of things that support, and are supported by, DP.
- Open Standards eg. OpenID
- Open Communities eg. DiSo
- Open Organisations eg. MySpace (Ahem! Well, companies that have issued
a press release in support of DP then)

Putting all that on the home page is probably a mistake.

--
Julian Bond  E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com  M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster:          http://www.ecademy.com/      T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog:    http://www.voidstar.com/     skype:julian.bond?chat
                         Do Not Expose To Heat

Aaron Cheung <a...@ydrive.com> Mon, 12 May 2008 12:45:49

I'm really uncomfortable with "Official Blog" on the home page linking
to http://dataportability.tumblr.com/

1) It's not a blog. It's a feed of bookmarks.
2) Only one person has control over it.
3) Official? What the hell does that mean?

Don't get me wrong, http://dataportability.tumblr.com/ is a great
personal initiative from Chris and it should be encouraged. But no way
is it an "Official Blog".

--
Julian Bond  E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com  M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster:          http://www.ecademy.com/      T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog:    http://www.voidstar.com/     skype:julian.bond?chat
                         Do Not Expose To Heat

Hi!

To me it also seems that some problems stem from some viewpoint of
some communities that we sort of do a land grab.
Like we come out of nothing but carry the mandate to solve the data
portability problem while others are already working
on it or related things. So I wonder if we should also think about
revising our mission a bit.

In the end IMHO the most important part is conversation. Be it with
web devs in a more grass roots effort or with companies.
I actually doubt that those companies really have given us a mandate
to solve the DP problem for them (by issueing a press release)
because then they need to be more active or they will do something
different anyway, like FB). Neither anybody else can give us
a mandate.

That being said I would like to see DP more as sort of a think tank
and an institution which raises the awareness of the problem
(which seems to be working quite well). That means that maybe having a
definite set of Best Practices is not such a good idea and
talking about trustmarks is neither. Maybe we should more talk about
proposals or recommendations which eventually will invite
more people to participare in the discussion instead of fighting us.
What will end in the end will probably be a mix of everything anyway
and only real life examples will show what will work and what won't.

So these are my $0.02 from a somewhat external perspecitive as I am
neither active in the other communities nor sitting in SF
or close to to experience that closely what actually happens there.

-- Christian

--
Christian Scholz
Tao Takashi (Second Life name)
taotaka...@gmail.com
Blog/Podcast: http://mrtopf.de/blog
Planet: http://worldofsl.com

Company: http://comlounge.net
Tech Video Blog: http://comlounge.tv
IRC: MrTopf/Tao_T

Yes, there's nothing wrong with running to the front of the parade, but it's
also good to embrace the small army behind you.

Just to pick one, as we all know lots of semweb folks have been working in
closely related areas for a long time. If DP was perceived more as a
conversational focal point and less as a set of technology blueprints, maybe
there'd be more engagement from them because they wouldn't think DP was
competing with them.

Then again, I could be wrong. It may be a question of bandwidth for any
existing group to mesh properly with their DP colleagues.

-Paul

When one person tells you an ass, laugh.
When a second person tells you, shrug.
When a third tells you you're an ass, look for a tail.

Where are the hard truths in Messina's message?

First, we've been coming across as assholes. Arrogant, holier than thou,
know it all assholes. Appropriating other's logos (faking endorsements).
Redefining well defined terms and ideas in our own language. Ignoring prior
art (look to the identity commons and IIW, for example). Picking winners and
losers as though we have the right.

Second, we lost whatever technical credibility we earned. It's one thing for
Chris Messina to tell us this in a private conversation. It's another when
he does it in public and at length and with a considered neutral tone. He's
the least reactive and most tolerant of all the serious geeks I know. He's
not alone in his opinions and wouldn't have gone to the trouble of spelling
everything out if he didn't know he was speaking for many others.

Third, we can smell the smoke of burnt bridges. It is now harder to get
dp.org calls returned than 60 days ago. Ghosts of deffected supporters and
volunteers litter the dp.org's trail. Bad behaviour, at odds with our stated
community values, creates cognitive dissonance and makes volunteers and
partners lose faith and be unhappy.

It sucks.

But that's where we are right now.

This is a compound crisis.

It's a crisis of perception. A crisis of reality. A crisis of leadership.

How can we use this reality check to deal with it?

Or do we stop becoming a "we" and dissolve the organization?

Phil Wolff
managing editor, Skype Journal
http://SkypeJournal.com
pwo...@skypejournal.com
skype:evanwolf
+1-510-444-8234 San Francisco
+1-646-461-6123 New York
+44 020 8816 8780 London
+852 8175 8107 Hong Kong
http://www.linkedin.com/in/philwolff
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=724232370

By the lack of authority vested in me by nobody in particular I hereby
deofficiate the tumblr blog.

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Julian Bond <julian_b...@voidstar.com>
wrote:

--
Phil Wolff
managing editor, Skype Journal
http://SkypeJournal.com
pwo...@skypejournal.com
skype:evanwolf
+1-510-444-8234 San Francisco
+1-646-461-6123 New York
+44 020 8816 8780 London
+852 8175 8107 Hong Kong
http://www.linkedin.com/in/philwolff
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=724232370

Wow Phil - big broad sweeping statements there - let me try to respond with
my personal thoughts

Calling out questions and comments about the project is encouraged and
welcomed - that's the point of an open community conversation. Any
high-visibility, large scale undertaking has a tail - maybe even some fur.

Using the logos on the front page was a way to show respect for those
standards and direct traffic their way. It was a statement about 'invent
nothing' and has been there since the beginning. Perhaps the evangelism team
would like to start a HomePage taskforce to deal modify/improve the page?

Redefining well defined terms and ideas in our own language.

That's what you do when you wrap technology with a consumer/mainstream
message - so I don't think we should apologize for that. Besides, I think
the only time we have done that is to coin the phrase 'Data Portability'.

I am not sure we can ever be accused of ignoring prior art WHILE being
accused of promoting other groups through their logos. We have spent long
conversations speaking to all groups - even started a research phase and
podcast series to make sure it happened. I don't think this point is fair to
say to any of the people who have worked very hard to reach out (including
Trent, Mary, Daniela and others). I know I have personally spent hours and
hours talking to anyone and everyone who will listen - many of whom have
joined the project and had major impacts on its mission and execution.

We have a right to do whatever want want for our own 'best practices'. It's
the market's right to use or ignore those best practices. The project was
set up to design best practices. That was our goal and it has been endorsed
by many.

Really? Chris Messina would you agree with that? I don't think you would
even call yourself tolerant and non-reactive :)

People come and go all the time Phil - people are busy with day jobs. I'm
not sure who's not returning your call - what calls are you making?

Again things like the logos on the front page can be seen as bad behavior by
some - even though it was an effort to promote the prior work. Making
decisions for what is 'best practices' is the stated goal of the project.
That is not misbehavior - it is our goal. Some may disagree with it, but
that does not make it wrong.

When you say leadership are you referring to me? Or to the other community
members who are cutting time from their day jobs to try to keep a very large
project on track? Are you not a leader of the DataPortability project? Are
you not running the DIY project and others? Would you like to swap out the
participants for someone else?

Anyone in the project can be a leader of a task force and change the wiki
and the conversation in radical ways. That has also been a stated goal.

Leadership is also knowing how to set a direction and sticking with it
however. Just because some question or goals, does not make them wrong. Just
because there are complaints (and there will always be complaints) does not
mean we're heading in the wrong direction. The trick of leadership is
knowing the difference.

Dissolve the organization? Wow that's a pretty drastic option for what is
essentially a set of easily remedied questions and concerns.

--
Chris Saad

FaradayMedia - For Audiences of One
Particls - Are You Paying Attention?
Engagd - The Open Attention Platform
Media 2.0 Workgroup - Social, Democratic, Distributed
APML - Your Attention Profile
DataPortability - Connect, Control, Share, Remix

So there is no problem? It's all imagined and in our heads?
I think we can no longer be dismissive of "naysayers" or of the volunteers
who've abandoned this project.
This is neither the time for denial nor defensive attacks.
This is a time to listen.

We should acknowledge there's a problem (which I hope I started in my
earlier post).

We should seek to understand the problem.
Then make a solution space with many options.
And work toward one or more solutions.

As for my responsibility, I'll take my share of responsibility as a member
of this community. But let's start by acknowledging that we have
responsibility not only for our vision but also for speech and behavior that
triggers frustration, outrage, rejection, confusion, and public castigation
by others. We should thank Messina for being clear so we can examine our
problem and find the changes we must make within ourselves.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves"

- phil

Phil Wolff
managing editor, Skype Journal
http://SkypeJournal.com
pwo...@skypejournal.com
skype:evanwolf
+1-510-444-8234 San Francisco
+1-646-461-6123 New York
+44 020 8816 8780 London
+852 8175 8107 Hong Kong
http://www.linkedin.com/in/philwolff
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=724232370

This issue has certainly not gone away over the last couple of months.

It is very clear to me that we need an official DataPortability blog
on a wordpress/typepad (or similar) platform.  It should be controlled
by a body of editors that together comprise a task-force.

-Brady

On the blog- i think the majority of the group has agreed to Brady's,
Julian and Phil's point above-shame on us for not doing something
about it. i do not have the bandwidth to take that on right now- but
is is with my support if someone wants to take the initiative (i
believe someone registered a WP Dataportability domain last month?)- i
know we discussed this in Evangelism chat last week in heated
discussion- let's just do it already.

Give it 24hrs if no one dissents violently that Tumblr is not the
'official Dataportability Blog' and that we should have an official
dataportability blog with a body of editors...do it.

On May 12, 10:44 am, "Phil Wolff" <pwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

ok i agree - it is what we have been trying to do- so what are we not
doing right? We engage in dialogs, we attend conferences/workshops and
participate, we listen, we invite them to help us define things, we
offer our support for projects etc. that are closely associated with
data portability. how can we further deliver back so we can move the
DataPortability project forward.

Phil i have also been approached by people 'outside' of the DP project
about their concerns and i have been trying to listen and understand
and converse with them. I think that not one but many have been
'quietly' going around speaking to some of us about their concerns-
which is great because if we are 'worth' their time it means that as a
group we probably doing something right. excellent. so we are
listening as is obvious in this thread you opened- so now what?

Our DP project group is global- and i feel that folks like you, Mary,
myself and others who are SF based have more of an opportunity to be
involved in the local scene which is great. From participating in
events like IIW and the upcoming Data Sharing Summit- to having lunch
and drinks with some of the others players- great so how can we
capitalize on this? For example the work that Trent is doing in Boston
is brilliant and Christian in Germany and Elias in Australia and on an
on an on...

The discussion lists on the google groups are the main way to
communicate with the DP project- and the right thing was to reference
Messina's post here (thanks Aaron)- this post however was one of the
first detailed statements of what we are and are not doing right that
i have seen in a while from the 'outside'- it seems that he has been
doing a lot of thinking on the subject which is great. do you happen
to know if Chris Messina discussed this with any other day to day
members of the DP project as he was thinking this post and the issues
through? (i am embarrassed to say that after 3 yrs in the valley i
have yet to have a conversation with Chris Messina-my bad)

i don't want to speak for anyone else-on this:  i am trying to keep
the channels open, i am open to critique (and like you fully take on
any blame that needs to be taken), i am frustrated as well but think
we have something that is moving these issues forward in the
mainstream - outside of the tech circles that feel are unapproachable
sometimes to people like me- and i don't think we can abandon what we
have started. Also, for me personally, some of the communication
methods for the 'advice' we have been receiving have been troubling at
times and it goes both ways sometimes with backchannel conversations,
personal attacks. etc - i have personally made the effort to state
that i personally do not believe that is the way to conduct 'business'
and have been very pleased with the results to date of my
conversations on the subject. we move one.

now- i have tons of reading and catching up to do. i have been asked
to be on a 'unpanel' on thursday at the DataSharing Summit-  i will
open up a thread to let everyone in the DP project group to share
their ideas on what i should highlight as part of the DataPortability
project- to get some advice as to which questions you all think the
panel will or should get, and how i can speak on the behalf of the
Workgroup if you all will allow me to.

Like Daniela, I'm at a bit of a loss in how to respond to what I
perceive as challenges to the DataPortability project.  Perhaps folks
are confusing "open" with "open attacks."  I don't know anymore.

Here's what I do know:  I would not be affiliated with any project,
organization or client that engages in subterfuge, theft or
badmouthing in pursuit of a mission.  Had I detected that, you
wouldn't be reading this right now.  And I wouldn't be involved in
something that wasted my time professionally -- that had no
technological depth or substance.

I have learned over time, in many situations, in more than one
industry, that if I have asked a question multiple times and I don't
get an answer or I get one that is off the subject, someone or
something is blowing smoke up my skirt.  In the case of
dataportability.org and the various specialists who feel they have
domain expertise and territorial privilege, I have asked many
technical questions and many process questions, and each time, the
answer was a dodge or made no sense to me.  Which I pointed out.
Which led me to the conclusion that something else is going on.  These
questions I've asked have been part of cordial conversations, or what
I thought were, as well as heated discussions.  The fact that I still
don't detect any major problems, just unfounded criticism or personal
criticisms, only tells me that there is something happening that folks
have no intention of clarifying.  In other words, I think I'm in
transparent conversations and debates, when I'm actually being played
or patronized.

On a personal level, no harm done.  Many of these specialists are
friends and colleagues.  Professionally, however, I believe it's time
that we direct any conversation about the scope, agenda, results and
technology findings of The DataPortability Project to these wiki pages
and out Google chats.  This is where the folks interested in data
portability, from the world over, gather to glean insights and see
what's new.  I want to see concrete, technological analysis that I
don't understand for all the right reasons -- and that I will come to
understand with the guidance of my fellow project members.  I suggest
we spend our precious time on achieving results and the fulfilling the
mission of this now-mainstream effort.

Hey folks I'd like to weigh in here.

When Google thinks its important enough to have a campfire, when
Microsoft forms an alliance and MySpace calls a press conference and
Facebook launches something new - we know we're in a hot area.

Advocacy is supposed to be inclusive.

So Dataportability.org should not lock-out or assume anything.
Dataportability.org needs to keep its nose clean and EARN its respect,
not assume it can speak for others.  That's probably teh biggest
problem here.

Dataportability.org exists to help the community of software
developers, end-users and even BigCo vendors promote the notion of
dataportability.  Its that simple.

Anything else is chaf.

Without getting into the detailed discussion here I think it's
important to keep in mind...

1. data portability (generically) has massive value to the community
and extraordinary momentum
2. There are many initiatives and personalities on reasonably aligned
paths supporting this
3. DataPortability (the organization) is perceived to be (and I
believe is) central to the current momentum, and is well positioned to
push this all forward based on what I think are common values on what
the web should be
4. There is going to be any amount of sniping and worse, much (but not
all) from well-intentioned people
5. The ongoing challenge for DP is to work with both aligned and
competing interests to help create a truly open web
6. It's not likely to get easier - expect headaches and pains in the
ass as an ongoing fact of life for DP
7. This is more than worthwhile, this is IMPORTANT for all of our
futures - don't think I'm overstating it here - and DP needs to
continue to thrash things out so it can play a (not necessarily 'the')
leading role in creating an open web. This has to come from a 'what is
possible?' outlook

Marc says

Yes, and if DP can be the  most inclusive of the initiatives, as it
has been so far, without being derailed by everyone it is including,
then it is likely to be the lynchpin to making the web open. Not easy,
but worth doing :-)

Hello.. wow.. what we've been through in an overnight..

Ok I'd seek to be brief.. I would like to see ATOM added. Atom is a good standard
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287) and already has widespread adoption, in particular
by google (long time) and microsoft (soon if not already)..

I don't mean to kick out newer standards like APML. It's purely ok (to me) to include
APML, even that appears too much self-serving to some, but that's ok and inevitable.

I do not mean that we need to rush ATOM onto the page now, but I'd like to
at least see it discussed, of whether to have it added, or remain dropped (from the
frontpage inclusion, should there continue to have such protocol/logo inclusions).

People (obviously me not alone) get annoyed if a discussion item was raised, but
resulted into any material decision, *while* some other items were never quite
discussed, yet decided by some to be of "official" status.. (apml being one, tumblr
issue being other).. not that they cannot be official. It's understood that in a group
like this, "whoever doing the job has the power", but should be willingly ready to
be subject to community challenges... it's more like running a private company vs.
running a public company.. you don't need to take a private company public, but
once it's taken public, there're "regulations" and "expectations" to cater for..

Not least, must say, these days, "data portability" is much like "web 2.0" or worse,
"web 3.0"... whereas the true definition, if any, no longer matters.. like web 2.0,
DP/dp more like a movement now (if not some marketing gimmick).. some phrases
made it big time (eg., "data portability").. while some are questionable ("social graph"),
and some simply failed (to date) to make it (eg., TBL's "giant global graph", or ggg,
obviously after www, despite TBL's coining).. and since data portability gained wide
acceptance, at least found love from members of the press, it's time to beef it up,
and my it solid, while also making it likable, and helpful, as Marc also said earlier.

Regards,
Aaron.

   never resulted into any material decision, *while* some other items were never quite

Ross Dawson <rossd...@gmail.com> Mon, 12 May 2008 19:26:28

I'd really strongly advise going back and reading the Wiki page on "What
is DataPortability?" http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/HgER

And do feel free to point critics at it as well. Much of the recent
criticism just falls away in the light of that page.

--
Julian Bond  E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com  M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster:          http://www.ecademy.com/      T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog:    http://www.voidstar.com/     skype:julian.bond?chat
                 Contains Flammable Gas Under Pressure

Currently on the wiki frontpage, the "About Us" (http://wiki.dataportability.org/display/dpmain/about) says --

==========
about (Page Not Found)

The page you were trying to reach could not be found: it may have been renamed or moved to another space, or the name you requested
may be incomplete.
==========

While it follows with a few boxed links for read-on's, it doesn't look too good... could someone curating that page help point it to
a more intelligent page, ie., either that http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/HgER page, or replace it with something "else"... :-)

Cheers,
Aaron.

I thought I'd just contribute a few thoughts here, since I kind of
kicked off this whole thread with my post.

First, I'm happy to see a discussion resulting from my post -- and
various people taking the time to consider what I was feeling.

To answer Daniela's question: no, I hadn't talked to anyone who really
would consider themselves a "member" of the DP community; I talked to
plenty of people *outside* the community, however, who have both
expressed and mirrored my own frustrations and concerns about the
group and wrote my post because, well, after having plenty of private
conversations, specifically with Chris Saad and, to a lesser extent,
Ben Metcalfe, I felt the need to say something, when the goddamn press
releases didn't stop even after Saad promised me to take the group
down a more "humble" and "grassroots" path at SG FOO. The behavior
indicates that either 1) he was lying to me and had no intention of
changing course 2) that PR for MySpace is something that they can't
afford and represent a new definition of "grassroots" 3) that the DP-
PR machine is simply more effective at taking credit for big moves
that they had nothing directly to do with than to promote smaller
independent, more "grassroots" groups who are *actually* making moves
towards effective data portability, like Dopplr, like TripIt, like
Satisfaction and Twitter and the rest. I don't believe I've seen any
press releases go out about them, and yet I would consider them to be
on the vanguard giving people access to their data in real-world,
useful ways.

So, I also felt like there weren't enough public criticisms about the
group coming out, even though I've been told, plenty of times, in
confidence, that they either 1) don't get what DP is trying to do 2)
feel uncomfortably about the work or the message of the DP group or 3)
really think that DP is just s fly flitting around that needs to be
supported In Name Only, frankly, because it has a good name, and how
could you *not* support people owning their data? I mean, it's like
asking companies to join the "I Don't Stab Babies in their Mouths"
group. Yeah, lemme take that to legal and see what they have to say.
So unfortunately people feel compelled to say that, "well sure, I
support data portability" -- meaning the abstract notion, without any
strings attached -- but oddly, saying that sounds A LOT like "well
sure, I support DataPortability", and when you hear someone speak
these words, well, how is one to know the difference? And therein lies
the rub.

Now, personally it's not that I don't think that the majority members
of this group/community aren't well intentioned. In fact, as I've said
before, I'm sympathetic to the abstract notion of "data portability",
and in fact have been working on solving that problem for the last
several years, even if I never called it that (I never needed to).
However, the biggest thing that this group needs to confront,
existentially, is what you're about, and how you intend to go about
bringing about the change that you want to see. Unfortunately, my
baseline sense is that you're unclear about what the *results* of your
goal actually look like (i.e. when everyone "owns" their own data and
can copy/move/sync/access it, what does that future look like? Are
there more businesses? Fewer? How do companies survive -- better
*thrive* -- in this new bold model?). If you're going to put the goal
of "[promoting] the idea that individuals have control over their data
by determing how they can use it and who can use it", you're putting
technicalities and social engineering as your top priorities, rather
than leading with benefits. I've pointed this out before, but I can
get a full XML data dump of all my Basecamp projects. That is data
portability, since I have control over it, and can determine how and
who can use it. BUT, NO ONE supports Basecamp Data Import, so I'm left
with a smolder pile of cow dung as far as I'm concerned, even though
the Basecamp scenario meets the criteria of the goal of the DP group.
Is that a win? If not, perhaps the direction is somewhat off from
where you need to be heading.

So if we dig deeper into your About document, we can see, in blinding
clarity, how much lip service is paid to the many wonderful open
source principles, ethos and practices that have helped it succeed,
but if you examine the behavior of the group, and I'll single out
Chris Saad since the majority of my interactions with the DP group
have been through and with him, I'd say that you're doing almost the
exact OPPOSITE of everything that you've outlined in your Approach,
Principles and NOT sections.

A few choice cuts:

* Engaging with individuals, services and standards bodies with
similar views where their scope is relevant

--> It is unclear to me how you engage with, in particular, standards
bodies or groups. I don't know what your protocol of engagement is
besides F2F conversations, which are anything but transparent, and I
don't know how 1) members of the DP project announce themselves to
groups that they're joining, or 2) how they report back to members of
this group, and 3) how their involvement or participation affects DP
overall. For example, if you join the microformats mailing lists, is
that redundant since arguably this group is already committed to, and
has a history of promoting, data portability? Would joining be a good
or bad use of a group members' time?

* Identifying new standards that are required to fulfill the data
portability vision

--> if you are inventing nothing new, I can see how outsourcing the
development of certain formats or protocols (they're not standard
until you can run a train across the country on them) is a proper
approach but 1) usually these groups developing such things have their
own interests in mind and don't care/aren't aware of other work 2) how
will you identity holes when you're not actually building anything?
And, just to help me understand, how would you evaluate things like
oEmbed and ODD? If they end up with logos, will they show up on the
homepage? Help me understand the evaluation process of determining
which emerging formats or protocols end up in the DP "social software
stack",

* The DataPortability project intends:
** To be open to anyone, whether individuals, companies or
organizations
** To reach resolution by consensus
** To have transparency in decisions
** To prefer collaboration of existing efforts over invention of new
technologies

I read somewhere that the group intends to do away with all the
politics that have held back previous efforts... Uh, right. Because
the democratic party, which supposedly welcomes everyone and is more
pro-grassroots, is somehow unified and has no internal politics? I
think that, while sheer openness and inclusivity are good values to
have, I think that diversity, in many ways, is even more important. I
think that choosing people to participate in this effort who are
familiar with the issues, who have worked on these problems in the
real world, who have actual customers who *oppose* things like "data
portability" is critical to developing something that will actually
take hold. Otherwise you're just circle jerking and feeling like the
world is on your side.

I don't think that you reach resolution through consensus. When has
that ever worked? You reach resolution when you have adoption. There
was this guy, Charles, and he had this theory about how competition
helped the most able species survive. You should look him up. He spent
a lot of time in the Galapagos. :P

I've seen very little transparency in decision making on matters of
import, i.e. the technologies on the homepage, which represent a
mutual endorsement (really, we don't need the extra traffic
thankyouverymuch -- nor did we ask for it). You've been transparent
about picking a logo (that hasn't gone so well) and about whether
Tumblr should be the official blog or not, and frankly, the decision
making process in both of those cases seems fraught with both politics
and a lack of clear ownership of the problem. I'll give you a pass
with those particular instances since this is still a young group with
a desire both to let everyone in while also trying to have some sense
of order, but the trajectory so far does not bode well, given my
previous experiences with constructive leadership.

The last point is somewhat redundant, though it's basically a self-
imposed mandate not to invent any new technologies. This is a good
one, but really the one that is required in order for you to maintain
any chance of credibility when so many other groups have sought, or
are working, to solve this problem. If you were to invent something
new, like the WRFS, the purpose of the group would clearly need to
change -- not because WRFS is a bad idea -- but because it's untested,
there are no implementations in the wild, and it's starting with a
new, bold vision. WRFS may catch on, who knows? But it's certainly
something outside the scope of the original point of promoting
existing means for achieving some kind of portable data
infrastructure.

Ok, now about what DP is NOT (and by the way, it is super handy that
you at least have this document and have wrung your hands about what
you are from the beginning -- it gives me something to actually refer
to, ideally, to help you do some introspection):

* We are not a group focused on creating new technologies.
DataPortability intends to work with tools that already exist today.

--> Ok, got that. Still, selection criteria is vague if non-existent.
I've gone through a selection process with DiSo and we landed on
microformats, OpenID, OAuth, ATOM and someday, XMPP.
* Microformats because WordPress already supported XFN and there's
lots of microformats in the wild already not being leveraged, plus
they're compatible with ATOM and ...

read more »

If I read it right this seems more like Chris (M) vs. Chris (S)..? ok let me put a smiley here :-)
Hmm, not simple issues.. and let me offer a few points from my feelings also..after Messina's -

My limited encounters with CS (before his "popularity" these days) gave me the impression
that CS is very choosy on who he responds to, or to be exact, he was then not returning my
early-January inquiry of how to join DP (despite the "Contact Us" link pointing to his mbox),
while day in and day out enjoyed mentioning things like Facebook joining, etc etc, and listing
industry-figurehead names (including Messina) on the dp frontpage.. so it's not surprising that
CS tends to value BigCo's much [much] more.. Ok that was January, mightbe things weren't
too ready. But then, as recently as in late April, CS did not seem like to even acknowledge
my email to him direct to his mbox, for my response to his asking publicly if there's any
announcements in support of DP..so, my feeling being, ok, we're too small and/or too new
to be worthy.. fair enough..

Why fair enough? because we have to understand that CS has been the "attention" guy.. recall
APML?.. so, attention is perhaps his better/best expertise..and Data Portability more like a tool?
In fact, still remember that long-standing-until-recently dp homepage? -- in that invent-nothing sq,
APML was spectacularly at 1st-row-1st-column, and next come OpenID, then microformats..
(point being, not simply due to alphabetical order reasons..)  Any problem with that? honestly,
not much of a problem.. though it feels a bit strange that, having invented something (APML) not
too long ago, now calling for invent-nothing... (anyway, I'd still like to say I'd like to see ATOM!)..

CS, might be perhaps being too close to TC's Arrington(?), has become pretty subjective,
and seemingly pretty much of strong-arm mentality.. and emerging with me-the-winner attitude..
meaning, seemingly don't quite want to listen (even at times appearing to be overly-democratic)
but when decisions not in his (personal) favor, he'd seek ways to get around it and still presenting
himself as the-person, and like, marking pages with official labels.. ok we've discussed that..

But reality is, being modest with a person is one thing.. some growing untold dislikes are another,
obviously at it seems now..

That said, CS did succeed in bringing good attention to "the dataportability project", of which we've
become a part, and that's undeniable credit due to CS. In light of this, I'd tend to agree more with
CS, with respect to his "marketing methodology".. even though, as I said elsewhere, it was more of
Scoble's incident with facebook that gave the take-off attention and profile to the dataportability
project, and I'd assume CS "had done something good" in between.

That said, and having observed the dp project almost from day one, I did have the feeling that
the group "stole" some publicity from some bigco's announcements in Q1.. however, recently,
per listings on the wikipedia.org dp page, some recent bigco's announcements did explicitly mention
that they were "joining the dataportability.org project".. in light of that, things kind of become more
like some "coalition of the willing" - mutually so.. it's become interwoven and meshed up already,
and already hard to say "who's taking who's advantage", if any. And that's business world anyway.

Given that, and with all due respect to Messina's points (switching to lastname form just to
avoid the which-Chris confusion), I'd tend to differ on that this group should focus to use the
"fix the web" approach.. because the web could never be "fixed".. :-| and because, perhaps 2 or 3
years down the road or so, dp would no longer be a topic worthy of discussing, or any attention,
at all.. An analogy would be more like OpenID vs. SAML -- the latter being too perfect (to take
off, big time).

Regards,
Aaron.

...

read more »

If I might add a few words.  When the Data Portability group first
started, I was quite excited, hoping that we finally had a group of
like minded people who would facilitate an intellectual discussion
around the subject and evangelize the need and showcase examples.
Very quickly I became disillusioned with the bureaucracy and PR
emphasis.  Start sounding like so many committees I have participated
in over the years.  Too much worry about branding, etc.  I must say I
agree with Marc Canter and factorjoe and really feel that there is too
much self importance going on as well

Deepak

On May 13, 2:15 pm, Aaron Cheung <a...@ydrive.com> wrote:

...

read more »

Just want to invite our visitors to actually participate in our
technical projects and identification of best practices!  Unless, of
course, you want visibility for your work and an examination into its
functionality and usefulness.  Not to mention its applicability in the
mainstream.  In that case, you might want to reconsider.  Thank you!

I really agree with what Deepak just said!  I drafted this as a start
of a blog post, never ended up finishing it, but think it fits really
well here.

Back in December I jumped on a plane and flew out to BarCamp London
for an awesome weekend of geekiness hosted by Google.  Fading in and
out of my sleepy stupor I was introduced to a site I hadn't seen
before, one which looked sufficiently geeky, promoting technologies
that I cared about, with people that I knew listed as being involved,
and I wanted to be a part of it.  That lovely scrappy looking site was
DataPortability.org.

Fast forward a month to January and the press machine starts to
churn.  Robert Scoble tests a new tool from Plaxo to sync his friends
from Facebook to Plaxo which results in his account being banned on
Facebook (http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/03/scoble-blocked-from-
facebook/) due to looking like an attack.  Scoble then joins
DataPortability (http://www.particls.com/blog/2008/01/welcoming-robet-
scoble-to.html) and the group issues a public invitation to Facebook
to join as well.  From there it only continues in the media as
Facebook, Google And Plaxo Join The DataPortability Workgroup (http://
www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/08/this-day-will-be-remembered-facebook-go...),
LinkedIn Joins The DataPortability Work Group (http://
www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/10/linkedin-joins-the-dataportability-work...),
LinkedIn, SixApart and Flickr *People* Join DataPortability.org
(http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/
linkedin_flickr_and_sixapart_dataportability.php), and then Microsoft
Joining DataPortability.org (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/
microsoft_joining_dataportabil.php).

Wow!  That felt like a lot of momentum, but out of these companies
none at the time had posted to the DataPortability mailing lists even
once!  This seemed to be a concerted PR effort around increasing the
visibility of the group; one that worked quite well.

Over the course of three months DataPortability had shifted from a
lovely scrappy open source style project that I wanted to be involved
in to something I didn't even understand anymore.  It is easy for
everyone to say that they "support data portability" without it
actually creating a real commitment to change.

--David

On May 13, 3:20 pm, mndoci <mnd...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

read more »