October 31 2007 Conference Call: Difference between revisions
Joe.andrieu (talk | contribs) (first draft) |
Joe.andrieu (talk | contribs) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* Joe Andrieu | * Joe Andrieu | ||
* Dean Landsman | * Dean Landsman | ||
* Iain Henderson | |||
* Drummond Reed | |||
* Charles Andres | |||
* Chris Carfi | |||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
===VRM Working Group at Identity Commons=== | |||
There is a draft working charter. What is the right way to move forward? Should the name be the "Project VRM Working Group"? The "VRM Working Group"? | |||
Dean suggested the former, as the Berkman link is particularly important politically. Joe suggested that the goal of the working group is "VRM" rather than specifically the Berkman Project VRM. | |||
http://www.idcommons.net/moin.cgi/VrmCharter | |||
===Draft Mission Plan=== | |||
Goal: revision process & traction to action items | |||
What about funding? Does that require a fundraising exercise? | |||
How is that intertwined with Berkman? | |||
What about its consequences vis-a-vis a new non-profit corporation? | |||
===Incorporation=== | |||
US? Non-profit? International? | |||
It may make sense to charter abroad, but that has added complications. | |||
Charles mentioned that with the 1394 and Infiniband group, with a large Asian component, were founded in the US. | |||
Iain points out that the EU is leading in privacy issues, so if that's a priority, we might consider basing ourselves out there. Charles points out that its less of an issue of the laws in the EU, but rather an issue of what we promote and advocate. | |||
===Membership?=== | |||
Are we going to form a membership organization? | |||
Not one for individual membership. We aren't really structured to be like the Sierra Club or the ACLU or the NAACP. | |||
Corporate membership is the common approach for standards setting bodies. And somehow we should find a way to integrate open software. | |||
===Scope of Work=== | |||
What level of "protocol" are we looking at? Data binding? Hand-shakes? | |||
SAML talks about "profiles" in a way that might be what we would call "protocols". | |||
The key is that the protocols start at the user-level, addressing user needs. | |||
There will be more than just technical protocols, but also policies and ceremonies. | |||
We want to start at the user level and build downward into viable implementations, using and re-using existing technology where we can. | |||
==Next Meeting== | ==Next Meeting== | ||
November 14, 2007 | November 14, 2007 | ||
[[category:conference call]] | [[category:conference call]] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:15, 31 October 2007
Conference Call Notes
Drafted by Joe Andrieu, October 31, 2007
IRC
- vrm at chat.freenode.net
Other Calls
Attendees
- Joe Andrieu
- Dean Landsman
- Iain Henderson
- Drummond Reed
- Charles Andres
- Chris Carfi
Notes
VRM Working Group at Identity Commons
There is a draft working charter. What is the right way to move forward? Should the name be the "Project VRM Working Group"? The "VRM Working Group"?
Dean suggested the former, as the Berkman link is particularly important politically. Joe suggested that the goal of the working group is "VRM" rather than specifically the Berkman Project VRM.
http://www.idcommons.net/moin.cgi/VrmCharter
Draft Mission Plan
Goal: revision process & traction to action items
What about funding? Does that require a fundraising exercise?
How is that intertwined with Berkman?
What about its consequences vis-a-vis a new non-profit corporation?
Incorporation
US? Non-profit? International?
It may make sense to charter abroad, but that has added complications.
Charles mentioned that with the 1394 and Infiniband group, with a large Asian component, were founded in the US.
Iain points out that the EU is leading in privacy issues, so if that's a priority, we might consider basing ourselves out there. Charles points out that its less of an issue of the laws in the EU, but rather an issue of what we promote and advocate.
Membership?
Are we going to form a membership organization?
Not one for individual membership. We aren't really structured to be like the Sierra Club or the ACLU or the NAACP.
Corporate membership is the common approach for standards setting bodies. And somehow we should find a way to integrate open software.
Scope of Work
What level of "protocol" are we looking at? Data binding? Hand-shakes?
SAML talks about "profiles" in a way that might be what we would call "protocols".
The key is that the protocols start at the user-level, addressing user needs.
There will be more than just technical protocols, but also policies and ceremonies.
We want to start at the user level and build downward into viable implementations, using and re-using existing technology where we can.
Next Meeting
November 14, 2007