Re: Identity Hubs and Agents

I was going to say something, similar, Daniel, although I didn't have Chris's nice references for shared language.

i appreciate the hard work you and the Evernym and Sovrin teams have put into defining and sharing your approach to solving these problems. You are ahead of the curve. So, while the terminology you've found may work for you--and its a living example of an approach that, in fact, works for someone, it is the job of the CCG to collate and coordinate and find consensus using terminology that works across as many implementations as possible.

What you've brought to the kitchen is good stuff. Let's add it to the stew and see what boils up as we incorporate the thoughts, experiences, and lessons learned from others as well.

To stretch my mediocre metaphor, our work here is akin to making a good stew with dozens of chefs in the kitchen. First, we bring it all together, then we percolate and stir until we find something that can reasonably be said to represent the consensus of the group. All the while we need to be kind and respectful and not rip the heads off our fellow collaborators--especially when they are CLEARLY wrong. It often feels that way, but the good work ahead is to listen, then integrate even those ideas from folks who perhaps at first blush sounded totally wrong. 

It's not easy, but apparently my life's work is finding ways to be graceful even when so many around me seem to be WRONG so often. ;) 

-j

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019, at 10:08 PM, Christopher Allen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:56 PM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@evernym.com> wrote:
>>> Please review the existing terminology before introducing new terms. https://github.com/hyperledger/aries-rfcs/tree/master/concepts/0004-agents#categorizing-agents
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> Please don’t call this “existing terminology”. The file you link to has 4 contributors yet almost all the commits are by you. It supercedes a document 100% written by you. There was no obvious consensus-driven process to define this terminology despite the label "accepted", and even if there was it was defined by a different community. You can’t unilaterally say that this is “existing terminology” without larger buy-in all the different communities involved through the use of some form of participatory process.
> 
> I worry that by taking the approach that "this terminology already is defined" hurts your advocacy and the success of your ideas. A community must feel engaged to commit to collaborating with you, and part of that very human process is the creation of a Shared Language. By denying the need for this emergence, fewer people will join you.
> 
> I wrote about this some time ago at http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2009/09/creating-shared-language-and-shared-artiifacts.html — the key quote is:
>> “Every time a new group of people meet together — whether in a team, in a marketplace, or in a community — one of the first activities they must do together is create a shared language. They do this in order to communicate more effectively together, to put a context on the words that they have in common, to construct a shared understanding in their minds based both on available information and their individual diversity of experience.
>> 
>> Don't forget that the linguistic root of communication is the Latin verb commūnĭco — which doesn't mean "to communicate" but instead means "to share something with someone, to take or receive a part of, to partake, to participate in". Thus the creation of a shared language takes us to the roots of communication.
>> 
>> Without taking the time time to create shared language, groups have a difficult time forging mutual trust. Without a shared language there will be no clarity on mutual goals — whether it involves working together, transacting a trade, or creating something. Without a shared language commitments can be hard to make, and if misunderstood can lead to disagreements. These group formation phases — trust building, goal clarification, and commitment — are essential.”
> 
> This is what the CCG and RWOT do: help people build trust by helping them create Shared Languages together. Yes, sometimes creating a Shared Language can be painful birth, but the outcomes can be quite powerful.
> 
> — Christopher Allen
> 
> P.S. If you are interested, I have a followup blog post on a related topic: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2014/06/deep-context-shared-languages.html
> 
> 
 <https://github.com/hyperledger/aries-rfcs/tree/master/concepts/0004-agents#categorizing-agents>

--
Joe Andrieu, PMP joe@legreq.com
LEGENDARY REQUIREMENTS +1(805)705-8651
Do what matters. http://legreq.com <http://www.legendaryrequirements.com/>