RE: Announcing the 10-Year SSI Revision Project

Here’s an update to the SSI 2.0 Identity Framework, a WIP: https://github.com/RevisitingSSI/Community/discussions/29#discussioncomment-15141095


Michael Herman
Web 7.0 Foundation

From: Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2025 12:32 AM
To: Jean F. Quéralt <JFQueralt@theiofoundation.org>
Cc: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>; Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Announcing the 10-Year SSI Revision Project

I’ll admit to being “lost” in the “I dunno what you taking about” sense.  I do think it’s risky to use too much buzzword ideology in place of evidence based policy

Kind regards

Steven Capell
UN/CEFACT Vice-Chair
Mob: +61 410 437854


On 5 Dec 2025, at 6:57 am, Jean F. Quéralt <JFQueralt@theiofoundation.org<mailto:JFQueralt@theiofoundation.org>> wrote:

Hi Christopher.

By "lost", I didn't mean "I don't understand", I meant "I am out".
Without getting into neverending arguments, I'll say the following:


> **Generative Identity & Ubuntu philosophy**


Too many words with too many red flag terms that focus on "lens" (we used to call it approach until the language stormtroopers paid a visit) and more than complementing a possible initial "individualistic approach" with a "relational approach" seems to be erasing the former in benefit of the latter. Groups don't exist without individuals. Identity starts with the individual or you don't need identity at all. Only then comes the social/practical layer.

> Feminist Identity

"Identity" is not "feminine". In any form or shape. That's politics & ideology talk.
Identity is a component of every single individual, regardless of sex. Attempting to play "a feminist lens" to technology is opening the floodgates to political and ideological possession.
Especially of an ideology that, despite the anecdotal "experiences" my reply will certainly be the target of, is hellbent on hating men.

Any technology that is bent/influenced/shaped/"transformed" by ANY ideology that isn't grounded on simple, non-agenda aligned principles is doomed and I would not recommend to touch it with a 25 foot pole.

"Feminism" is not "egalitarianism". It's in the name.


> Decolonial theory

Any "critique" (> Critical Theories) towards "technology being too Westerner" is, to the very least, laughable.
One irremediable consequence of inventing something is that
1) You name it
2) You get to decide how it originally works... because you invented it for yourself.

Do I need to make the point with Arabic numerals, really?

All of this self-flagellation over "who invented what and how it *ahem dominates the paradigm" is utter nonsense: The global world is an open market and if anyone would have had a better way to do the Internet they would have competed and get it done. It's funny I hear, not a single time, complains about how China is building their own thing (literally) while day-in day-out the West needs to be whipped for the very technologies that have taken out poverty so many millions of people worldwide.

On the other hand, "Decolonial Theories" (see also Critical Immigration Theory) is just another component of a global mentality hellbent in taking down the West for the sake of envy.
That's just what it is and it's past bed time to call it what it really is. Again, China conveniently left out when it's by far the most active agent in technology and pretty much any other area of life (hello South China sea?) that is trying to take over (colonize, yes how fitting it's never applied to them) as many layers of the tech  stack as humanly possible.

I also have to say that it's not because something is "indigenous" that it magically becomes better.
What is better IS better. And that's measured by effectiveness, not by magical thinking.

"Global South" is an insult, like many other terms designed to generate a sense of victimization instead of encouraging people to get their arse ignited and get shit done.
The 1984 Language Brigade has been doubling hours coming up with terms such as "Silent Majority" to hammer indigestible and revenge-wet-dreams-filled ideas.
Paraphrasing Dave Chappelle: "because that's what they do, they make up words to win arguments".

So yes... anything appealing to "decolonial" stuff can't be taken seriously.


> Legal personhood guarantees

I feel there's another confusion/conflation here:
I don't need to prove that I exists and that I am who I claim to be (or that I have assigned a given capacity) UNLESS I need to fulfill a compliance verification (of any kind).
No one cares about who I am until I need to go vote.


My hope is to ensure that the 2026 Principles leave no ambiguity here: the first principle is **not** about digital shadows or identifiers, but about the inherent dignity and existence of human beings.

I find it ironic that "dignity" is a concern when we area asked to revisit these concepts under precepts that definitely do not respect nor dignify so many people falling outside of the "lenses" of "feminism" and "decolonial theories". Especially when my own point of view is going to be met with disdain, vitriol and subsequent consequences (or do you think that won't be the case, really?).
That kind of "dignity"?


I hope this helps address your questions. If you have more, I encourage you to bring them to the public discussion area on GitHub:
https://github.com/RevisitingSSI/Community/discussions or to join the private Signal chat group.

I am confused.
I received the invitation to participate in this list so I am  replying through it.
I do not feel any interest in joining other channels since I don't feel compelled to join this work.




Best regards,

[company-logo]
Jean F. Quéralt
Founder & CEO
The IO Foundation
+60 108 04 84 63
JFQueralt@theiofoundation.org<https://server.utags.co/dPYRRzLq>
TheIOFoundation.org<https://server.utags.co/UQhyvZjQ>




—Christopher Allen

DISCLAIMER
The content of this message, which may contain personal or sensitive data, is confidential. If you have received it by mistake, please inform the sender by replying to the email and then permanently delete the message, including any attachments. It is forbidden to copy, forward or in any way reveal the content of this message to anyone. The integrity and security of this email cannot be guaranteed over the Internet and, therefore, the sender will not be held liable for any damage caused by the message.