Re: Information Card Foundation Announced

[Aaron Cheung]

Got this thread from -public.

 

My thoughts about it being, a thing done right -- re the org itself -- and beautiful.

 

In the recent governance policy exercise, a lot of the unnecessary "power struggle" stems from the unclear goal of what we're trying to do.

 

Are we trying to form a non-profit foundation -- a question repeatedly asked and repeatedly avoided and even knowingly misguided, leading to all those otherwise unnecessary confusions -- almost cunning deception.

 

If we were to form a nonprofit foundation, just state it clearly and unequivocally. Then the steps are crystal clear. There's no complications about seeding authority citing past/present/future co-founders etc etc, to the extent that even the motion that was unamously passed yesterday was unnecessary. There's no bootstraping or steping stone issues. Just pick a group (of founding corporations) do it this (informationcard foundation) way, or the opensocial foundation (www.opensocial.org) way, simple and clear.

 

Why there was so much argument, it kind of became clear yesterday, that the "co-founders" (whoever they were) are not quite focusing to form a non-profit org, but also considering options of making it a for-profit corporation. Strictly speaking, to many participants here, this is almost deception. But also strictly speaking, there's nothing wrong for the "co-founders" (whoever they were) to consider turning this into a for-profit entity -- only that it (the intention per se) should be stated upfront, so that people -- eg., like me, presumably some others -- don't need to assume that the proposed governance policy was for a non-profit foundation.

 

That's why people were generally wanted to stay off any legal-entity related areas in formulating the proposed governance policy, to the extent that people were guided to not even include a name of the document and a statement of purpose of the document (normally that's rare and becomes enough suspicious). My take on that is, the interest-laden "co-founders" (whoever they were) only want your blessing for their power, but anything of business/commercial/legal interests -- don't touch.

 

Which in fact is fine. But, if this is the case (what case? it could be a non-profit org, it could be for-profit corp, not decided yet, you don't need to know) -- state exactly that upfront, so that people won't need to waste time arguing unnecessarily and meaninglessly. Because they have very different needs. And if for-profit, you don't even need to waste your time argue for your rights here. Do whatever you want, and if people don't like it, they just leave. Because, then, it's for a brand of yours, not for a cause of ours.

 

Regards,

/ac.

 

 

Kaliya pointed this out on the ID-Commons mailing-list. I think is is relevant.  Curious what people's thoughts are, even this early in the org's life.

Information Card Foundation Announced:

http://informationcard.net

The coverage:
http://news.google.co.uk/search?q=information+card+foundation

Business Members:

Equifax, Google, Microsoft, Novell, Oracle, PayPal

--
Brady Brim-DeForest
www.brimdeforest.com

DataPortability
www.dataportability.org

Follow me on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/bradybd

 

[Elias Bizannes]

Aaron, sorry there's no conspiracy theory here. You are looking for
issues that don't exist. You can keep digging, but I can assure you,
you are questioning some geniune people that have become fatigued by
the questioning of motive.

I'm one of the co-founders you are pointing a finger at. For the
record, I have never liked the idea of creating a legal entity because
it adds adminstrative burden to a community that doesn't need it.
Having said that though, I do recognise the opportunities presented by
having a legal entity to further the mission of DataPortability.

The other co-founders of DataPortability are Chris Saad, Daniela
Barbosa, Ben Metcalfe, Paul Jones, Ashley Angell, Marjolein Hoestra.

I work at PricewaterhouseCoopers (an organisation that makes
$20billion a year from its independence) - the reason I continue to
work on DataPortability is because of the people I meet and the
relationships I form through them. The other reason is that it gives
me an amazing experience that I can take forward in the future. Those
are my two "personal benefit" reasons aside from intellectual
stimulation of interacting with people. If you can't believe that,
then I can't help you.

I have absolutely no interest to turn this into a for-profit venture,
and despite being a chartered accountant, I'm better placed than any
to be able to create a business plan - and quite frankly, I don't see
value on why we should.

[Aaron Cheung]

Thanks Elias.. fatiguing indeed. Not sure if somebody said something wrong
or somebody heard/interpreted it wrong in the latest 1300 Steering telecon,
but your clarification is super and informative.

PwC i think needs no introduction.. but inasmuch as its relevancy to DP, we
recall that Anderson, one of the Big Five, folded along with the Enron scandal,
which was much more than some conspiracy theory.

Regards,
/ac.