Help!
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Elias Bizannes
Aug 11, 2008, 6:08:06 PM8/11/08
to DataPortability.TaskForce.Vision
Hi everyone,
It would be good if someone could help me on the research work for
this task force.
I am 80% done on documenting the original DP workgroup. My next plan
of attack in the DP general mailing list.
Can someone help me out? This is criticial to examine previous
senstiments before we engage in the formal vision document.
This is how I have been documenting it: http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/soAt
The to do list for research: http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/XIAt
It would be good if someone could help me on the research work for
this task force.
I am 80% done on documenting the original DP workgroup. My next plan
of attack in the DP general mailing list.
Can someone help me out? This is criticial to examine previous
senstiments before we engage in the formal vision document.
This is how I have been documenting it: http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/soAt
The to do list for research: http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/XIAt
Elias Bizannes
Aug 17, 2008, 10:19:02 AM8/17/08
to DataPortability.TaskForce.Vision
Woohoo!
Despite my life going nuts with oh-my-god-I-don't-even-have -time-to-
do-the-washing-for-new-work-shirts, I have managed to complete the
first but very important research excercise - that being the original
dataportability workgroup.
http://wiki.dataportability.org/display/dpmain/original+DataPortability+workgroup+vision.TF
Next is going through the public list, picking out nuggets of the DP
vision and mission. Would appreciate some help here, as this is a
crucial excercise before we formally draft the vision.
Despite my life going nuts with oh-my-god-I-don't-even-have -time-to-
do-the-washing-for-new-work-shirts, I have managed to complete the
first but very important research excercise - that being the original
dataportability workgroup.
http://wiki.dataportability.org/display/dpmain/original+DataPortability+workgroup+vision.TF
Next is going through the public list, picking out nuggets of the DP
vision and mission. Would appreciate some help here, as this is a
crucial excercise before we formally draft the vision.
J. Trent Adams
Aug 20, 2008, 12:57:51 PM8/20/08
to DataPortability.TaskForce.Vision
Elias -
Excellent work pulling this together. I agree to trolling through
what's been said to date will uncover rich nuggets for thought. I
wonder, though, how much of the worldview has changed in the time
since the notes you reference were written.
Now that you've done a lot of the leg work, perhaps it'd help to focus
our effort by adopting the "Traditional Vision/Mission/Values
Approach" that I suggested [1]. For example, we could take a stab at
crafting the "Vision Statement" (keeping in mind the past statements
as guides).
Another approach, now being explored in a recent IDTBD thread [2]
would be to list what we want to do (e.g. ). From that, we could back
into a common set of Vision, Mission, and Values statements. For
example, what would we want to check off the following menu as areas
in which the DataPortability Project sees itself playing a defined
role:
A - Operational Standard Development
B - Certification / Trademark Programs
C - Technical Standard Development
D - Conference Activities
E - Special Interest Discussion Groups (vertical market requirements
or other self-organizing topics)
F - Use Case Definition/Requirements Development
G - Special Events - Globally (the ability to attract key policy
makers to a discussion)
H - Open Source Development
I - Effective External Coordination (the ability to establish joint-
work plans/MOU's with external bodies)
At the end of the day, whatever approach we select, I'd like to see us
focus in on a narrowly defined process so we can make tangible forward
progress.
Thoughts?
- Trent
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-vision-task-force/msg/17e225f9bd04a96e?hl=en
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/idtbd/browse_thread/thread/314632c20548fb1e?hl=en
On Aug 17, 10:19 am, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Woohoo!
>
> Despite my life going nuts with oh-my-god-I-don't-even-have -time-to-
> do-the-washing-for-new-work-shirts, I have managed to complete the
> first but very important research excercise - that being the original
> dataportability workgroup.http://wiki.dataportability.org/display/dpmain/original+DataPortabili...
Excellent work pulling this together. I agree to trolling through
what's been said to date will uncover rich nuggets for thought. I
wonder, though, how much of the worldview has changed in the time
since the notes you reference were written.
Now that you've done a lot of the leg work, perhaps it'd help to focus
our effort by adopting the "Traditional Vision/Mission/Values
Approach" that I suggested [1]. For example, we could take a stab at
crafting the "Vision Statement" (keeping in mind the past statements
as guides).
Another approach, now being explored in a recent IDTBD thread [2]
would be to list what we want to do (e.g. ). From that, we could back
into a common set of Vision, Mission, and Values statements. For
example, what would we want to check off the following menu as areas
in which the DataPortability Project sees itself playing a defined
role:
A - Operational Standard Development
B - Certification / Trademark Programs
C - Technical Standard Development
D - Conference Activities
E - Special Interest Discussion Groups (vertical market requirements
or other self-organizing topics)
F - Use Case Definition/Requirements Development
G - Special Events - Globally (the ability to attract key policy
makers to a discussion)
H - Open Source Development
I - Effective External Coordination (the ability to establish joint-
work plans/MOU's with external bodies)
At the end of the day, whatever approach we select, I'd like to see us
focus in on a narrowly defined process so we can make tangible forward
progress.
Thoughts?
- Trent
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-vision-task-force/msg/17e225f9bd04a96e?hl=en
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/idtbd/browse_thread/thread/314632c20548fb1e?hl=en
On Aug 17, 10:19 am, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Woohoo!
>
> Despite my life going nuts with oh-my-god-I-don't-even-have -time-to-
> do-the-washing-for-new-work-shirts, I have managed to complete the
> first but very important research excercise - that being the original
Elias Bizannes
Aug 20, 2008, 7:51:16 PM8/20/08
to dataportability-...@googlegroups.com
Excellent work pulling this together. I agree to trolling through
what's been said to date will uncover rich nuggets for thought. I
wonder, though, how much of the worldview has changed in the time
since the notes you reference were written.
Not quite. Things as subtle as whether a consumer "owns" or "controls" their data is something I know personally, I have had hours and hours of discussions on and still feel unconfident on the approach. These are discussions you will find from the first set of threads in the Public forum. Picking which one we go with, requires a lot of support why.
Additionally, I think the only thing that has changed is not "the" worldview, but "which" world view. Discontent about the blueprint approach was evident as far back in December when the blueprint approach was initially proposed. Even though I was in that workgroup, I didn't realise it at the time and has changed my perception.
Having said that though, I think it's adequate that the workgroup has been summarised. Due to the lack of support from people here, and my 15 hour work days, there is no way we can meet that 1 September deadline. So I am going to have to draw a line in the sand, and say the initial research is done for the first draft. We should now go about drafting the vision document.
As for what you raise Trent, I think that's a useful discussion to be had. What type of activities do people think DataPortability.Org should be doing?
My view:
A - Operational Standard Development: NO
B - Certification / Trademark Programs: MAYBE
C - Technical Standard Development: NO BUT YES - we identify holes, and support standards groups to develop a solution
D - Conference Activities: YES
E - Special Interest Discussion Groups (vertical market requirements or other self-organizing topics): NOT SURE - what does this mean?
F - Use Case Definition/Requirements Development: YES
G - Special Events - Globally (the ability to attract key policy makers to a discussion): YES
H - Open Source Development: MAYBE - task forces may develop a solution that is compatible with our vision
B - Certification / Trademark Programs: MAYBE
C - Technical Standard Development: NO BUT YES - we identify holes, and support standards groups to develop a solution
D - Conference Activities: YES
E - Special Interest Discussion Groups (vertical market requirements or other self-organizing topics): NOT SURE - what does this mean?
F - Use Case Definition/Requirements Development: YES
G - Special Events - Globally (the ability to attract key policy makers to a discussion): YES
H - Open Source Development: MAYBE - task forces may develop a solution that is compatible with our vision
I - Effective External Coordination (the ability to establish joint-work plans/MOU's with external bodies): YES
What do others think?
Christian Scholz / Tao Takashi (SL)
Aug 21, 2008, 5:41:56 AM8/21/08
to dataportability-...@googlegroups.com
Hi!
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:51 AM, Elias Bizannes
<elias.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Excellent work pulling this together. I agree to trolling through
>> what's been said to date will uncover rich nuggets for thought. I
>> wonder, though, how much of the worldview has changed in the time
>> since the notes you reference were written.
>
>
> Not quite. Things as subtle as whether a consumer "owns" or "controls" their
> data is something I know personally, I have had hours and hours of
> discussions on and still feel unconfident on the approach. These are
> discussions you will find from the first set of threads in the Public forum.
> Picking which one we go with, requires a lot of support why.
I remember these discussions but didn't we all agree that "owns" is a
somewhat complicated term and maybe should be left for lawyers to
discuss?
My view would be:
1. Define some policies based on use cases on what "the user is in
control" means. This might be the biggest task and maybe the most
important as I see it as so many technical things are discussed
already but somehow the background is missing: What problem should it
solve? Like are identities mangled together or not? etc.
2. Based on those policies (maybe modelled like CC license modules) we
can check technologies or implementations for compliance. We can also
propose what maybe needs to be changed to get a higher level of
portability. I guess this would be certification. I am not sure how
strict this needs to be though. For me personally I would be ok with
just having some policies which can be used as discussion background.
This of course would be based on requirements engineering and use
cases (which's task forces could then actually revisit the mailing
list archive. I remember good posts from Jonathan Vanasco and others
on the topic. Also the use cases Scoble mentioned regarding Facebook
come to mind).
As for promotion of the idea and such principles I agree that we should do:
- Effective External Communication
- Special Events/Conferences
and in general bringing people in that field together and fostering discussions.
Standards development as you mentioned is probably not what we should
do as I don't see that they will become an actual standard. But we
should try to influence other standards developed by providing useful
guidelines on features they need.
As for the field we work on I would leave this rather open. Our focus
might be web (mine is additional virtual worlds) but I don't see any
reason to limit it to this. If people are interested other fields,
then that's great. We need to discuss then how policies might be
shared or need to be redefined of course.
That's my €0.02
-- Christian
>
>
> [1]
> http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-vision-task-force/msg/17e225f9bd04a96e?hl=en
> [2]
> http://groups.google.com/group/idtbd/browse_thread/thread/314632c20548fb1e?hl=en
>
> What do others think?
> --
> Elias Bizannes
> http://liako.biz
> >
>
--
Christian Scholz
Tao Takashi (Second Life name)
taota...@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
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:51 AM, Elias Bizannes
<elias.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Excellent work pulling this together. I agree to trolling through
>> what's been said to date will uncover rich nuggets for thought. I
>> wonder, though, how much of the worldview has changed in the time
>> since the notes you reference were written.
>
>
> Not quite. Things as subtle as whether a consumer "owns" or "controls" their
> data is something I know personally, I have had hours and hours of
> discussions on and still feel unconfident on the approach. These are
> discussions you will find from the first set of threads in the Public forum.
> Picking which one we go with, requires a lot of support why.
somewhat complicated term and maybe should be left for lawyers to
discuss?
1. Define some policies based on use cases on what "the user is in
control" means. This might be the biggest task and maybe the most
important as I see it as so many technical things are discussed
already but somehow the background is missing: What problem should it
solve? Like are identities mangled together or not? etc.
2. Based on those policies (maybe modelled like CC license modules) we
can check technologies or implementations for compliance. We can also
propose what maybe needs to be changed to get a higher level of
portability. I guess this would be certification. I am not sure how
strict this needs to be though. For me personally I would be ok with
just having some policies which can be used as discussion background.
This of course would be based on requirements engineering and use
cases (which's task forces could then actually revisit the mailing
list archive. I remember good posts from Jonathan Vanasco and others
on the topic. Also the use cases Scoble mentioned regarding Facebook
come to mind).
As for promotion of the idea and such principles I agree that we should do:
- Effective External Communication
- Special Events/Conferences
and in general bringing people in that field together and fostering discussions.
Standards development as you mentioned is probably not what we should
do as I don't see that they will become an actual standard. But we
should try to influence other standards developed by providing useful
guidelines on features they need.
As for the field we work on I would leave this rather open. Our focus
might be web (mine is additional virtual worlds) but I don't see any
reason to limit it to this. If people are interested other fields,
then that's great. We need to discuss then how policies might be
shared or need to be redefined of course.
That's my €0.02
-- Christian
>
>
> [1]
> http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-vision-task-force/msg/17e225f9bd04a96e?hl=en
> [2]
> http://groups.google.com/group/idtbd/browse_thread/thread/314632c20548fb1e?hl=en
>
> What do others think?
> --
> Elias Bizannes
> http://liako.biz
> >
>
Christian Scholz
Tao Takashi (Second Life name)
taota...@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
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages