This part looks reasonable. But...
> The key shared component that loosely coupled the groups is reflected
...but I'm not so sure about this, because the purpose of the identity
commons group ("open identity layer for the Internet") is not the same
as that of the DataPortability group.
Not being directly involved, I can't give a definitive answer, but
from the open identity perspective, I suspect data portability would
be perceived as something enabled by open identity. The identity stuff
certainly does have a special role when it comes to trust,
authorization and authentication in data portability. But
fundamentally identity (according to the OI definition) is just one
specific kind of data. (I have a few comments on those definitions,
will mail separately).
A high-level approximation of this would be that to OI folks DP is a
subset of their purpose, and contrariwise to DP folks OI is a subset
of their purpose...
> As with the W3C issue, I feel that the DP group can best serve the
> community by being an independent story telling body - one that takes
> input from all sides and weaves it into a complete, contextualized
Heh, I'm still not convinced "blueprint" is the best way to go, but I
agree with your general sentiment here.
> That being said, however, I think that the charter they outline is
> fairly lightweight - and we really need to be filling out our charter
> anyway. Also I don't see anything problematic with the core Purpose
> and Principles.
Except it's a different purpose..?
> I would imagine the OpenID peeps (David/Scott etc?) would be familiar
> with this already?
> So the question is:
> Should we adopt the core principles and bring ourselves in line with
> the IC groups? Any down side? Any up side?
I'd like to hear more about the OI perspective on DP. Right now it
seems to me that while the aims and goals may be the same, and the
purposes complementary, they are not the same, hence adopting them
would probably not be a good move.