Who can see your viewing activity?
We’re going to have to put a rate limit on Canadian members :-)
What do they put in the water there? Canada is constantly out ahead in digital identity!
It is the weather.
That’s very exciting - a really compelling ecosystem.
Adrian Doerk - Lissi
Hello together, Adrian Doerk here from Germany. I do communication and community building for Lissi and the SSI for Germany initiatives. Can't speak atm.
Welcome Adrian. I think you had recently shared update about Lissi on the Slack channel. Fantastic work there.
Yes, welcome Adrian
imo, each instance is a projecteach project has 1 or more phases or releaseseach phase or release is implemented and testedonce implemented and tested, the said phase or release enters production and is in operations mode
Sovrin Foundation, has created a single-ledger ecosystem and operates at Layers 4 and 1 at minimum.
The Sovrin Governance Framework Working Group is actually splitting apart the Sovrin Governance Framework into a ToIP Layer One utility governance framework and a ToIP Layer Four ecosystem governance framework
That work has already started
CULedger has a member directory service as well - MemberPass Trust Registry
Maintain would be fine
Also need to include the status of interoperability with other ecosystems during the operational period
Sovrin was/is a multi-organization integrating Business Operations Legal Technology Social (BOLTS) aka Business Legal Technology (BLT) aka Technology Business Management (TBM). “Operate” is the central “quarterback” to orchestrating all of the elements. Maybe move our evolving discussion and model to some non-linear graphical depictions?
I can see Dan’s point. If these “steps” are the workflow for a project, then operate doesn’t really belong. Operation of the results of the project should be defined by the governance framework, and the step would not be necessary. The main decision is what does the work flow apply to: the project, or the results of the project?
I have been thinking about the workflow applying to the evolution of the project. Once it gets implemented, it’s up and running and so “Maintain” and/or “Grow” would cover future evolution of the project.
+1 Drummond, and the Gina/Dan discussion on auditability are also consistent with other stds 9at least in healthcare)
The word “foundry” in the name of the work group is key: Our purpose is not to create ecosystems, but to make it easy for others to create them. Given that, we should focus on the projects, not what they create, so maybe Operate doesn’t belong. We just need to be clear as to what we’re talking about. This is all new, so the discussion has to happen.
“Grow” to me is an optional part of a higher-level “Maintain” concept. I don’t see where “Operate” fits under the ToIP world at all.
I think getting into sub-ecosystems is boiling the ocean
sorry my mic isn't working
+1 Jim - “ecosystem” that contains “ecosystems” is still an ecosystem.
Along the audibility thread, would there be a feedback mechanism that could be used to further refine our own deliverables?
+1 Steven I would see one
Ecosystems can definitely be part of other ecosystems
Agreed Drummond - they are still, on their own, an ecosystem.
IMHO I only see an "ecosystem of ecosystems" if there are defined roles, identities, and use cases that specialize/differnitate at each level
The circles in Venn diagrams are all circles whether they overlap or not - and any degree of overlapping is ok
@Jim, that would align with Agile’s Build-Measure-Learn cycle
I will suggest that using the lists/forums would help in maintaining an archive of the perspectives and how they were refined.
Thanks Steve. Ex: a Chamber of Commerce is an Ecosystem. The chamber has bakers (ecosystem) shoe makers (ecosystem), etc
if you don't plan for the successful operation of a foundary project IMHO you are asking for a failed ecosystem.I suppose it could be relegated to governance, but that seems very static and the nature of an ecosystem is very dynamicI'm not committed to the idea that it needs to be part of the foundary process, but it also doesn't seem to fit fully in governance either
Steve, I also see where Governance reveals where use cases in an Ecosystem are nut folly defined and the Foundry work feeds back to governance for refinement
IMHO the implementation plan prepared at the Foundry stage must definitely including planning for operation of the ecosystem. In almost every incubating ecosystem of which I’m aware, all of them have some operational components.
Some SEC regs could fit this model
I'm also thinking of Ecosystems in the context of my previous days tinkering in Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC)/XACML
Something I’m realizing may not be clear is that the definition I have been working with of an ecosystem is defined by the scope of its governance framework. We need to refine that both here in this WG and also harmonize it with the Concepts and Terminology WG that is starting up.
Please do provide input on the draft terms posted on the wiki
thanks! great discussion
Great stuff, Karl!