Fwd: addressing the needs of the community

[Brett McDowell]

I think this discussion taking place on the community list at Identity Commons is relevant to DataPortability.org, especially when we get past approving the governance model and we take on the chore of figuring out the organizational model for the Data Portability Project.  It's a public list so you could feel free to join it if you want, or we can have a parallel discussion about this same premise here that is more specific to DP.  When you read the message below consider yourselves/ourselves solicited to be involved in (or simply make use of) NewUSDUmbrellaOrg.  

What do you think of that proposition?  If there is some high-level interest maybe we can get into a discussion around specifics.

-- Brett

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett McDowell <br...@projectliberty.org>

Date: June 26, 2008 3:01:40 PM EDT

To: Drummond Reed <drummo...@cordance.net>

Cc: 'Eugene Eric Kim' <ee...@blueoxen.com>, 'ID Commons---Community Mailing List' <Comm...@idcommons.net>

Subject: addressing the needs of the community

Ok, it looks like there is some interest among the (most visibly active) Identity Commons Stewards to explore this further.

It sounds like the Stewards want to support the community with all the infrastructure, staffing, process, etc. that the individual projects require (easily groked simply by looking at what they have each had to put in place independently for their project).  I'm pleased to see this level of interest and open-mindedness toward addressing this (ever increasing) problem of project/foundation fragmentation in our space.

But it seems that the issue right up-front is a chicken-and-egg problem.  Identity Commons does not have the resources to invest in a "if you build it they will come (and make it financially self-sustaining thereafter)" model.  If you have the will to do this, and if other groups are feeling this pain as well, maybe we can combine efforts to address the resource bootstrap problem.

What if we found a project or two or three out there today, with financial resources at their disposal, who were feeling the pain of how fragmented the identity community has become, who were interested in consolidating their projects (and all that that entails) with Identity Commons to create a "new" Upside-down Umbrella Org  (maybe we can put the naming question aside for the moment and just call this NewUSDUmbrellaOrg for the moment), because all they wanted at the end of the day is a simple yet professional and robust way of getting their project done and successfully marketed/adopted?  If we could find this critical-mass of folks asking you to be apart of this NewUSDUmbrellaOrg, could you put the way you do things today on the table subject to change (all except your core Purpose & Principals)?

Is this something you are interested in?  It's something I know many independent businesses and organizations/projects in this space are interested in.  I think if you were able to put everything on the table except your core Purpose & Principals you'd find willing partners who represent critical-mass of resources (and projects) necessary to solve the bootstrap problem.

What do you think?  Is there anything in this context setting that raises red flags?  I'm trying to keep this high-level before we get into any details (which I know will be debated line-by-line, as they should be).

-- Brett


On Jun 19, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Drummond Reed wrote:

I agree that this is worth exploring. So much of the progress (one would

argue almost all of the progress except for Kaliya's efforts) of Identity

Commons is based on what is important to specific groups that self-organize

to get it done.

In this case, the potential is for Identity Commons itself to do more for

the Action Groups. But there's a bootstrap problem: we need the

infrastructure to attract new Action Groups who want to use it...and the

Action Groups need the infrastructure before they can come.

I'm open to creative ways to solve that bootstrap problem. In the end the

mission remains the same: facilitate building a user-centric identity layer

for the net. That's what we're about.

=Drummond

-----Original Message-----

From: communit...@idcommons.net [mailto:community-

bou...@idcommons.net] On Behalf Of Eugene Eric Kim

Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 11:48 AM

To: 'ID Commons---Community Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [Community] Identity Commons Stewards call today at 9am PT /

12pm ET

Comments below.

Brett McDowell wrote:

I think the issue is pretty simple... groups are going through the same

reinvestment of time and dollars just to setup the operational shell for

their project.  Often its even the same people.  That alone is a sign

IDcommons isn't "doing enough" (I don't mean that as a criticism, I

don't think IDcommons really wanted to provide all of this for the

community... yet), but what's worse is the end result is bad for

everyone... too many projects to join, track, travel for, etc.  If

something comes up that requires more than one project to do something

(i.e. synergies are discovered) then it is that much harder to make

progress (multiple groups need to work in sync even if on the same

thing, wasted and duplicative effort).

So, if you simply look at what these groups have done, or are continuing

to do, you will know exactly what you need to do to remove that barrier

for future projects.  If you do a good enough job, you might even get

some of these new foundations to "come back/under/over" what you have

created because of the value proposition you offer.

Is this something you really want to tackle?  If not, what if you

weren't alone in trying to pull it off?  What would you need from

partnering projects to feel you had the resources to do this and do it

well?

Yes, with a caveat.

My question for these groups is, what are the opportunities to eliminate

redundancy?  Certainly not having to deal with the operational costs of

starting a new organization seems attractive, and that is definitely

something Identity Commons should and is now in a position to address.

However, much of the labor of starting a new project/organization would

still remain, such as going through the process of developing a charter.

At IIW, we identified director's insurance as a possible service Identity

Commons could provide to working groups.  After exploring this issue,

Charles Andre discovered that it wasn't feasible.  What are some of the

other concrete opportunities?

Also, would you be open to being "sponsored" by an umbrella foundation

but still operating as "a commons" without any of the membership

structure that was brought up on the call.

What does this mean?

=Eugene

--

=========================================================================

Eugene Eric Kim ................................... http://xri.net/=eekim

Blue Oxen Associates ........................... http://www.blueoxen.com/

=========================================================================

_______________________________________________

Community mailing list

Comm...@idcommons.net

http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community

_______________________________________________

Community mailing list

Comm...@idcommons.net

http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community

[Elias Bizannes]

Sorry Brett, I am trying to understand the value proposition.

What's the point? What does it need to be yet another organisation?
Could it be like an organisation that is like a white label solution
ie, communities get the infrastructure support but that's behind the
scenes. What's the need being addressed? What resources do groups
actually need other than money?

> >>> Commun...@idcommons.net

> >>>http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Community mailing list

> >> Commun...@idcommons.net
> >>http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community

[Aaron Cheung]

Worth exploring.. though pretty complicated and convoluted.. sounds more like
a well-recognized and sovereign country, albeit yet-to-be-established, soliciting
or being solicited to join one of the Commonwealths.. or EU.. or UN.. :-)
or.. an ambitious somebody calling for a New World Order post-web2.0..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29

or.. well, depends on whether we want independence, or interdependence... /ac.

[Breslin, John]

Hi all - apologies, I will be unable to participate in Monday's telecon. John.

--

[Brett McDowell]

Elias: if NewOrg existed, was agreed to be a good way of getting
things done by many, many leaders in the industry, would DP spend the
next 6-18 months trying to form its own governance and legal entity
and financial model? If NewOrg doesn't exist that is exactly what DP
is going to do and how many volunteers will be left to enjoy the new
DP once all that work is done? That in a nutshell is the problem this
is addressing from your point-of-view.

Aaron: I'm proposing fewer organizations not more. We consolidate a
handful into one NewOrg and each project benefits on day one.

[Kaliya *]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Brett McDowell <brettm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Elias: if NewOrg existed, was agreed to be a good way of getting
things done by many, many leaders in the industry, would DP spend the
next 6-18 months trying to form its own governance

I think groups that have a clear purpose need the freedom to decide their own governance model. What are they trying to do and how are they going to govern themselves to do it. What is their purpose? what are the principles they have guiding them in achieving their purpose together  and from that what are their practices (how do they work together and govern themselves to work on doing their stated purpose).

There is clearly a need for some common services for the range of emerging work/groups/action forums etc. that would be good to figure out how to provide in common and also support the efforts being connected and building a culture of collaboration and cross group re-use and sharing of things that are working. This is different then 'forced non duplication' .




 

[Aaron Cheung]

Worth exploring... but also not untrue that it's a pretty complicated scenario; as you know --

 

:-)

/ac.

[Kaliya *]

Can you explain why you think it is complex?

Groups in IC have charters that say what they do and how they do it.  They go and do it and collaborate with others working on complementary efforts.

Groups agree to some principles and the main requirement is to report quarterly about their activities (so you don't have to be on 20+ lists to learn about what is going on in the community).
IC creates space for all the different activity to connect and collaborate - to work together.

So far a lot of good work has come out of the community and continues to emerge.
The Identity Gang - where a lot of the conversations began 4+ years ago the IIW where we first came together to meet, OpenID (the current version of which really first came together at IIW), Information Cards and Higgins along with interoperability work of these different systems like OSIS, there is also two other open source projects Pamela and Bandit in this space.  At IIW the user-centric community got to know and find intersections of collaboration with the SAML/Liberty Alliance community.

Project VRM that is trying to influence the market to shift things.
A group is coming together to increase the information sharing between the legal community and technical communities working on all this identity, relationship and data sharing stuff.  There is activity emerging around kids online and how it relates to these technologies.   I am working on a project to open interactive scenario planning - looking at the Future this will also incorporate really making more accessable the large body of written work that informs the development of this emering layer of the web. Lots going on being driven by passionate people from a diverse range of perspectives and diverse approaches - we share a common vision at a high level

support, facilitate, and promote the creation of an open identity layer for the Internet -- one that maximizes control, convenience, and privacy for the individual while encouraging the development of healthy, interoperable communities.
 

We (Drummond and I) invited the DP community to be a part of the IC community - to learn from our work to date, to learn something about our practices that have helped the groups doing work in this area function and get so far.  I am still not sure what didn't make sense about joining in and learning from existing efforts with similar goals and working together. 

I am serious in asking you what you think is complex about IC - it seems simple to me.  We are a commons a community creating a space to collaborate together.  There are some really simple practices that we have found help us make our principles real.  This isn't quite the right analogy but there is something to it - ants and birds both have simple rules that help govern complex behavior.  We have some complex things happening in the community - in part because we have some simple rules to guide behavior. 

Like at an event that is using the open space principles - amazingly complex things can emerge out of that form because you have some shared common understanding that everyone shares to help create and navigate the space.

[Aaron Cheung]

It does make sense and it is worth exploring, with caveats..

 

Re why I think it's complicated, it's said in relative terms and in the context of

Brett's proposal, if I understand it right, of: join the ICF and there's no need for a DPF.

 

If that's the understanding, is it true that the DP community is almost reduced to an

IC Work Group, by way of an "Data Portability Charter", ie., -
http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Working_Groups

http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Working_Group_Charter_Template

http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Bylaws

 

(The analogy would be like the original Google OpenSocial initiative's trying to reduce

the Facebook Platform to an OpenSocial Container.. though both have evolved since

then, in parallel, but.. Facebook has not yet joined OpenSocial, for apparent reasons.)

 

In which case (if no DPF), I agree that it's simple enough, and workable, and there are

successful cases, notably ISOC's www.isoc.org/isoc/chapters/guidelines/bylaws.shtml.

 

But complications arise when DP is more in the mode/mood/interest of forming its own

IC-equivalent, org-structure'wise; and if that's true [sorry -- these days we don't quite

know what's true anymore] and, if to say exactly what I mean and say it mean, that's

almost like the emerging DPF being eaten alive by ICF. :-) :-|

 

Thus, whether it is a simple thing, or a complicated scenario, really depends on what

the/some co-founders (and/or co-founders-to-be, should that make sense) of DP want.

If nobody's wanting a DPF, then the alternate option to exist under the IC umbrella org

would be worth exploring..

 

Well, then, what's the needs and wants of DP?.. From my understanding, the need (and

the perceived rushing of things) was triggered by TechCrunch's donation of that US$6k?..

so, if I could propose, so as to help us see how it works to address this particular need,

that, mightbe IC reps here could help us visualize how IC could help the DP community

(via the incumbent executives of cos) to take and spend this $6k donation--just as a working

example, if that has pragmatic value to help us visualize/appreciate the complexity/simplicity..

 

 

 

Can you explain why you think it is complex?

Groups in IC have charters that say what they do and how they do it.  They go and do it and collaborate with others working on complementary efforts.

Groups agree to some principles and the main requirement is to report quarterly about their activities (so you don't have to be on 20+ lists to learn about what is going on in the community).
IC creates space for all the different activity to connect and collaborate - to work together.

So far a lot of good work has come out of the community and continues to emerge.
The Identity Gang - where a lot of the conversations began 4+ years ago the IIW where we first came together to meet, OpenID (the current version of which really first came together at IIW), Information Cards and Higgins along with interoperability work of these different systems like OSIS, there is also two other open source projects Pamela and Bandit in this space.  At IIW the user-centric community got to know and find intersections of collaboration with the SAML/Liberty Alliance community.

Project VRM that is trying to influence the market to shift things.
A group is coming together to increase the information sharing between the legal community and technical communities working on all this identity, relationship and data sharing stuff.  There is activity emerging around kids online and how it relates to these technologies.   I am working on a project to open interactive scenario planning - looking at the Future this will also incorporate really making more accessable the large body of written work that informs the development of this emering layer of the web. Lots going on being driven by passionate people from a diverse range of perspectives and diverse approaches - we share a common vision at a high level

support, facilitate, and promote the creation of an open identity layer for the Internet -- one that maximizes control, convenience, and privacy for the individual while encouraging the development of healthy, interoperable communities.
 

We (Drummond and I) invited the DP community to be a part of the IC community - to learn from our work to date, to learn something about our practices that have helped the groups doing work in this area function and get so far.  I am still not sure what didn't make sense about joining in and learning from existing efforts with similar goals and working together. 

I am serious in asking you what you think is complex about IC - it seems simple to me.  We are a commons a community creating a space to collaborate together.  There are some really simple practices that we have found help us make our principles real.  This isn't quite the right analogy but there is something to it - ants and birds both have simple rules that help govern complex behavior.  We have some complex things happening in the community - in part because we have some simple rules to guide behavior. 

Like at an event that is using the open space principles - amazingly complex things can emerge out of that form because you have some shared common understanding that everyone shares to help create and navigate the space.

 

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Aaron Cheung <a...@ydrive.com> wrote:

Worth exploring... but also not untrue that it's a pretty complicated scenario; as you know --

 

[Kaliya *]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Aaron Cheung <a...@ydrive.com> wrote:

It does make sense and it is worth exploring, with caveats..

 

Re why I think it's complicated, it's said in relative terms and in the context of

Brett's proposal, if I understand it right, of: join the ICF and there's no need for a DPF.

 

If that's the understanding, is it true that the DP community is almost reduced

So maybe it isn't "clear" there is no 'reduction' by belonging to IC.
The Informaiton Cards Foundation was launched this week - with Google, Equifax, PayPal, MSFT, Oracle on the board along with 9 community members - they are applying to be an IC community group - http://www.identityblog.com/?p=994.

The calling of groups "working group" is being changed (we didn't realize the implications the name had at IETF the center can 'Kill' and 'startup' working groups they are 'under' the center' this is not how we are organized in IC).   We are likely to be called "action groups" -> they are independent foundations with their own boards, independent software projects (like Higgins at the Eclipse Foundation) independent projects working on shifting business markets and developing norms for using some of the technical tools (Project VRM is at Berkman Harvard)  and some groups that just people organizing as groups at IC.

No one is "reduced" all are enhanced by having a space to work together.  To share information and collaborate.

to an

IC Work Group, by way of an "Data Portability Charter", ie., -
http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Working_Groups

http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Working_Group_Charter_Template

http://wiki.idcommons.net/index.php/Bylaws

 

(The analogy would be like the original Google OpenSocial initiative's trying to reduce the Facebook Platform to an OpenSocial Container.. though both have evolved since then, in parallel, but.. Facebook has not yet joined OpenSocial, for apparent reasons.)

I am not sure that I follow you.

 

 

In which case (if no DPF), I agree that it's simple enough, and workable, and there are successful cases, notably ISOC's www.isoc.org/isoc/chapters/guidelines/bylaws.shtml.

 

But complications arise when DP is more in the mode/mood/interest of forming its own IC-equivalent, org-structure'wise; and if that's true [sorry -- these days we don't quite know what's true anymore] and, if to say exactly what I mean and say it mean, that's almost like the emerging DPF being eaten alive by ICF.

IC is just IC no F - I assume you think that is for Foundation - I guess you haven't read much about us.

Nobody is trying to eat anyone. We are inviting collaboration, sharing, communication, building upon existing work and the community of technologists who have been working on DP issues for 5+ years. Not subsuming 'this group' inviting it to join a community of groups.
 

:-) :-|

 

Thus, whether it is a simple thing, or a complicated scenario, really depends on what the/some co-founders (and/or co-founders-to-be, should that make sense) of DP want. If nobody's wanting a DPF, then the alternate option to exist under the IC umbrella org would be worth exploring..

You can be your own 'thing' and part of IC.   You could become a group and spin up your own independent organization and stay part of the community - stay a group.
 
In case you haven't looked at our logo - it is an upside down umbrella - that means their is no committee in the center "controlling" what groups can do.  No  "steering".  You should read up more on our history and culture before you make these assumptions.  It is easy to make assumptions about how organizations are supposed to work but we have consciously organized ourselves quite differently then the default ways.
 

 

Well, then, what's the needs and wants of DP?.. From my understanding, the need (and the perceived rushing of things) was triggered by TechCrunch's donation of that US$6k?..so, if I could propose, so as to help us see how it works to address this particular need, that, mightbe IC reps here could help us visualize how IC could help the DP community (via the incumbent executives of cos) to take and spend this $6k donation--just as a working example, if that has pragmatic value to help us visualize/appreciate the complexity/simplicity..

Easy -  get clear on your purpose.  Figure out your principles that go beyond the IC ones if you have any. 

Fill out the charter - get clear on how you organize/govern yourselves - what your practices are.

The stewards council will vote.  We have an informal mentoring incubation program to become part of the community.

Once approved as a group - you are free to use the bank account of IC - a common resource that groups that are part of the community can use to for fill their purposes.

I explained all this to Daniella and Chris a long time ago.

-Kaliya

[Aaron Cheung]

I think it's more of a perception thing than an assumption thing, and things are evolving.. so not quite meaningful to debate much, other than my understanding of what DP's trying to do has been quite like what IC's trying to do.. but again, it's different perception to different people, eg., like your mention of the upside-down umbrella in the IC logo, it's as subtle and hidden as the arrow in the FedEx logo, so it's not surprising that values offered by IC are perhaps less obvious than what IC'ers would think of, and it's up to them to sell the case to the DP community.. and in any case, it does remain an option for DP to explore, and I'm not against IC in any aspect, at all.. /ac.

[Kaliya *]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Aaron Cheung <a...@ydrive.com> wrote:

I think it's more of a perception thing than an assumption thing, and things are evolving.. so not quite meaningful to debate much, other than my understanding of what DP's trying to do has been quite like what IC's trying to do.

Nope. They are doing different things.  You are STEERING a marketing effort about certain technical things you think are baked and ready for public adoption. IC is stewarding a community working on really HARD complex technical, social and legal issues around and an emerging identity layer of the web.

My understanding is that DP is a market awareness building organization  EVANGELISM AND MARKETING - creating demand for existing standards and technology - I would think with that kind of idea you MIGHT just MIGHT want to be in relationship with the ongoing community working on innovating those standards and efforts.   The ones about people and their identities - the owners of the social data you want portability for. Those are mostly gathered at IC.
 

. but again, it's different perception to different people, eg., like your mention of the upside-down umbrella in the IC logo, it's as subtle and hidden as the arrow in the FedEx logo, so it's not surprising that values offered by IC are perhaps less obvious than what IC'ers would think of, and it's up to them to sell the case to the DP community..

Well I can turn that around too it might be up to you to show up and in IC and learn a bit about the preceded your work work (originally founded in 2001 and the most recent group of people became active in 2004) . Building and complementing seem to be a better option then starting form scratch.   IC people who are involved in the core of the community showed up quite a bit in DP early on and had some good things to say - were really open - basically they could not be heard. Really it is up to you but you chose not to join in and participate we have invited you many times and basically you didn't accept the invitation even to just learn.

I have sent multiple intro e-mails to Eugene Kim the Chair of the IC stewards council to Chris Saad.  He never actually met with him.  Really I am tired of the whole process. I invited you in EARLY like in Jan/Feb to explore our community - to join our lists. I piped up and talked about the technologies we have evolving getting adoption and attention from major technology vendors - really not interesting to people here apparently.  There is only so much one can do.

 

[Aaron Cheung]

Seems pretty complicated and convoluted... :-)

 

I guess I'm not quite following you.

 

I never heard of IC until Brett forwarded in those IC emails thus starting this thread.

 

And you've taken what I said out of context -- when I said of the trying-to-do's, I was explicitly referring to ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE, like when I said eaten, it was in the context of what Brett's proposing, ie., FEWER ORGANIZATIONS.

 

Regards,