RE: [projectvrm] First person technologies

[Brian Behlendorf < >]

It's preferable to be obvious, but everything obvious likely already 
carries baggage (or trademarks).  I like "First Person Technology" because 
for those who wouldn't get the context we have here, it sounds like 
something positive and what users would want, in a way that "vendor 
relationship" doesn't do as well.

FPT already has some use, but not too much: 
http://www.firstpersontechnologies.com/

Brian

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014, Nathan Schor wrote:
> The terms usefulness depends, of course, on who is interpreting it. The case 
> of ‘I've vetted it with a number of folks on this list, and they have picked 
> it up easily and
> enthusiastically.’ may not be so surprising since they’re very familiar with 
> the context ‘first person technology’ is describing.
>
> But typical buyers and sellers (and investors) likely won’t have that native 
> familiarity, so likely wonder how ’first’ differs from ‘second’ and ‘third’ 
> person. This necessitates
> further explanation, resulting in the same downside we experience with the 
> VRM term.
>
> Preferably we need a term/phrase that’s recognizable by the commercial 
> mainstream with minimal backstory.
>
>  
>
> Nathan Schor 305.632.1368 
>
>  
>
>  
>
> From: Doc Searls 
> [mailto:
>  ]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 2:01 PM
> To: ProjectVRM list
> Subject: [projectvrm] First person technologies
>
>  
>
> I just put up Why we need first person technologies on the Net at the 
> ProjectVRM blog.
>
>  
>
> Here is some of the thinking behind it. 
>
>  
>
> As we reviewed in an earlier thread, VRM is fine as a descriptive category. 
> It has served us well, and we will continue to do so; but it requires 
> explanation. First person
> technology does as well, but to a far lesser degree. In other words, it's 
> easier to get. I've vetted it with a number of folks on this list, and they 
> have picked it up easily and
> enthusiastically. So I think it works.
>
>  
>
> It labels a subset of the work we're doing here; but it's a core subset that 
> has enough definition to serve as a clear category — one the world needs 
> before individuals enjoy full
> agency in the networked world, including benefits under the heading we call 
> privacy. First person technology is also a category that should be easy for 
> those offering centralized
> (or decentralized) services to embrace as well.
>
>  
>
> Obviously this is a first pass, and requires discussion, improvement and 
> evangelism before it can become a meme. But I wanted to get it out there this 
> week, before I head to
> Australia to visit a bunch of VRM folk there and help with the good work 
> they're doing.
>
>  
>
> I have also acquired firstperson.technology as a domain name. (Yes, 
> .technology is now a top level domain.) Advice on how to deploy it, if we 
> choose to do so, is also welcome.
>
>  
>
> Doc
>
>  
>
>