W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > December 2018

Re: The United Humans investment offer

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:41:32 -0800
To: Adam Lake <alake@digitalbazaar.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <74f98e62-59e8-e636-fc6b-67bddc5153ce@sunshine.net>
On 2018-12-21 7:57 AM, Adam Lake wrote:
> I agree that these non-spec discussions are valuable. Sometimes they 
> go off the rails but overall think they are a plus. I was hoping to 
> announce a project to the group in January. Is doing so now forbidden?
> Kim, when you mentioned that RWoT is a more appropriate place to 
> announce such projects are you referencing a slack channel?
> Where is the best place to discuss business models and philosophical, 
> regulatory, and marketing type concerns around SSI tech?

My opinion only:
This is the right place for such discussions. Such discussions were, 
as far as I can recall, always a major part of the evolution of the 
group, and it's only in the last year or two, as the form of the tech 
has become closer to finalized, that there has been less of them. But 
the tech couldn't have had its current form if they hadn't existed. 
And I think completely excluding them now would be a mistake.

But I believe a line should be drawn at marketing aimed *at* the 
group, ie., solicitation of investment in a project.

But even there I think it's fair to announce a project that looks for 
such investment *once* to the group, so at least we're aware of what's 

Steven Rowat

> Adam
> On 12/21/2018 10:27 AM, Kerri Lemoie wrote:
>> Hi Sam & all,
>> I am also grateful for the discourse of this group. I can see why 
>> these topics don’t fit here but they are valuable. Does anyone have 
>> a suggestion as to where we can shift these discussions elsewhere 
>> outside of this list?
>> Thanks!
>> K
>> —
>> Kerri Lemoie
>> OpenWorks Group
>> http://openworksgrp.com
>> @kayaelle @openworksgrp @badgechain
>>> On Dec 21, 2018, at 10:19 AM, Sam Chase <samantha@venn.agency 
>>> <mailto:samantha@venn.agency>> wrote:
>>> I deeply apologize this was meant to be a private email to both 
>>> Bohdan and Moses.
>>> I hope everyone has an amazing holiday, I am grateful for the 
>>> discourse of this group.
>>> Wishing you all the very best!!
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On Dec 21, 2018, at 7:13 AM, Sam Chase <samantha@venn.agency 
>>>> <mailto:samantha@venn.agency>> wrote:
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>> First, happy holidays and I appreciate this discourse.
>>>> I have two things I’d like to clear up:
>>>> Bohdan, my issue with your email(s) to the group is nothing to do 
>>>> with UH and everything to do with your disregard for the purpose 
>>>> of the mailing list. You have defiantly ignored multiple people 
>>>> trying to explain why your approach, not your idea-is flawed and 
>>>> frustrating. It’s disrespectful to pitch ANYTHING to the group and 
>>>> I will be bringing it up with leadership.
>>>> Moses, you started the monetization discussion. The only reason I 
>>>> volunteered to host the discussion was to steer the group away 
>>>> from the dangerous and careless language being used. That language 
>>>> continued even after multiple discussions about its lack of tact. 
>>>> You started and initiated and quite adamantly when it’s the end of 
>>>> the year and the group has more than enough on it’s plate.
>>>> You speak eloquently of the problems facing us a commons and the 
>>>> challenges ahead in making SSI sustainable. But then you speak 
>>>> clumsily and without adjustments after critique of your words and 
>>>> continue to push this outward while passing it off to volunteers. 
>>>> Not taking ownership for initiatives you suggest for the community 
>>>> and then piling on someone else about their lack of tact isn’t 
>>>> tactful either.
>>>> You left the webinar you suggested 20 minutes in and found a 
>>>> volunteer to do the next one. Where is the accountability?
>>>> Bohdan and Moses, thank-you for this discussion and I look forward 
>>>> to discussing these ideas you both shared at RWoT; and I am 
>>>> grateful to be working with you further on emerging technical 
>>>> standards with the w3C.
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> On Dec 21, 2018, at 6:41 AM, Bohdan Andriyiv 
>>>>> <bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org 
>>>>> <mailto:bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org>> wrote:
>>>>> Dear chairs, and CCG community,
>>>>> I think we as a community should be able to discuss new projects 
>>>>> that are based on the specifications that we develop here 
>>>>> (especially, if these projects are open source and philanthropic 
>>>>> in nature).
>>>>> The whole point in making these specifications is to do great 
>>>>> things with them. How can we create great things if we are not 
>>>>> allowed to talk about them with each other, find like minded 
>>>>> people, experts in SSI, DIDs, VCs etc?
>>>>> I do not think these discussions would overwhelm our forum. If 
>>>>> they do, we can think about tags to use in email subjects for 
>>>>> example - [spec], [proposal], [spam].
>>>>> If we cannot do these discussions in this mailing list we should 
>>>>> have another forum where such discussions can happen. If we 
>>>>> decide to go this route I am volunteering to communicate with w3c 
>>>>> to open and administer such mailing list.
>>>>> Regarding this specific thread:
>>>>> The reason for the initial email of this thread was to publicly 
>>>>> announce about The United Humans seed offer, and if some members 
>>>>> of the community find the idea of the UH interesting, to publicly 
>>>>> discuss it _with those people_. I was in particular interested to 
>>>>> have discussion about technologies that makes UH possible - 
>>>>> simplified undirected web-of-trust, verifiable credentials with 
>>>>> human readable verifiable layer (using Resource Integrity 
>>>>> Proofs), as well as many technological, social and economical 
>>>>> implications of the UH. It is really frustrating when the person 
>>>>> who did not spend time to understand the idea and for whom I 
>>>>> struggle to find artifacts or conversations that can be 
>>>>> considered as interesting contributions to the specifications or 
>>>>> community, gets to hijack and shutdown the conversation. My 
>>>>> opinion is that if you are not interested in the topic simply 
>>>>> ignore it, if you think it really distracts, spams, or scams the 
>>>>> community, after checking that this is actually true raise your 
>>>>> concerns in direct, but polite manner.
>>>>> Anyway, anyone who is interested to discuss the idea of The 
>>>>> United Humans organization please contact me. I think we will 
>>>>> create the public forum to have public conversations about it.
>>>>> Also, I plan to present the UH idea and in particular its 
>>>>> Web-of-Trust on the next RWOT conference. Rebooted Web-of-Trust 
>>>>> (undirected, based on VC's with human readable visual verifiable 
>>>>> layer) is one of the core things that makes possible The United 
>>>>> Humans organization.
>>>>> -Bohdan
>>>>> ---- On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:05:22 +0200 Kim Hamilton Duffy 
>>>>> <kim@learningmachine.com <mailto:kim@learningmachine.com>> wrote 
>>>>> ----
>>>>>> Dear CCG community,On behalf of the chairs, I'd like to clarify 
>>>>>> that CCG's focus is emerging technical standards -- not business 
>>>>>> models. We recognize the importance of the latter discussions, 
>>>>>> but CCG forums (including calls and mailing lists) are not the 
>>>>>> place for these to happen. Specific concerns are:it distracts 
>>>>>> from the large amount of technical work we need to do
>>>>>> it risks compromising the (perceived) integrity of the group
>>>>>> it has an extremely divisive impact, which we've witnessed on 
>>>>>> numerous occasions
>>>>>> We have the following recommendations:For this specific thread: 
>>>>>> Any parties with further discussion should follow up outside of 
>>>>>> the CCG mailing list
>>>>>> In general:
>>>>>> Avoid discussion of business models or investment solicitations 
>>>>>> on the CCG mailing list
>>>>>> Rebooting Web of Trust community provides a better forum for 
>>>>>> discussion of business models
>>>>>> Thanks for understanding,Kim, on behalf of chairs
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 9:32 AM Bohdan Andriyiv 
>>>>>> <bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org 
>>>>>> <mailto:bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Kim Hamilton DuffyCTO & Principal Architect Learning 
>>>>>> MachineCo-chair W3C Credentials Community Group 
>>>>>> kim@learningmachine.com <mailto:kim@learningmachine.com>
>>>>>> Please, see updated The United Humans pitch deck. On slide 11, a 
>>>>>> typo in the amount of presale Kudos was made. It should have 
>>>>>> been 285 Bln, not 274 Bln. Please, use the corrected pitch deck 
>>>>>> in the attachment.
>>>>>> -Bohdan
>>>>>> ---- On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 20:25:17 +0200 Bohdan Andriyiv 
>>>>>> <bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org 
>>>>>> <mailto:bohdan.andriyiv@validbook.org>> wrote ----
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> I am raising seed funds to establish The United Humans 
>>>>>>> organization.
>>>>>>> The purpose of The United Humans organization is to create and 
>>>>>>> maintain the set of core cooperation tools and services,
>>>>>>> that enable human digital sovereignty, protect human rights and 
>>>>>>> well-being, make human cooperation more effective, transparent 
>>>>>>> and reliable.
>>>>>>> More details are in the attached pitch deck.
>>>>>>> -Bohdan
> -- 
> Adam Lake
> Director, Business Development
> Digital Bazaar
> Veres.io
> 540-285-0083
Received on Friday, 21 December 2018 16:41:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 December 2018 16:41:46 UTC