Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> The stated mission of ID2020 is to provide digital identities for all people worldwide by 2030

I'm guessing the stated mission has been changed once or twice since it was founded.



sort by: page size:

sure, probably the new mission statement is something like:

To organize the world’s information and make it Alphabetically accessible and useful.

but I still feel they have a lot of interest in organizing all the world's information.


I think that just means "this won't be very helpful in standing up your own DigID". It also says they're looking at providing more ongoing transparency.

"To organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible"

Because they claimed they cared about this sort of thing. For a while, it seemed as if they meant it.


Hard to say. The mission statement seems to be an attempt to create a 'post liberal synthesis', which sounds like Tony Gidden's neoliberal 'third way', but is so no specific it could mean just about anything. https://palladiummag.com/2018/09/29/towards-the-post-liberal...

The subtitle is "Past, Present, and Future", but I'm really missing what the future will hold. All they mention is that "We’re not sure what the next community initiative will look like"

" Our intention is not only to advance our own agenda, but to help shape the future of the on-line world. For instance, non-technical issues are now shaping the future of the Internet as much as, if not more than, technical innovation."

Did they just say they were going to be funding politics and activism with most of the money?


I'm not seeing anything on the community leadership, board, voting etc. The only references I see are to Radius Networks.

So, the way I read the mission statement is: We [Radius Networks] firmly believe that an open specification would help everyone, and we [Radius Networks] want to do it right. This is simply the proposal, now we [Radius Networks] would like feedback from the community.


> an announcement of a desire to set a target

Isn't it an announcement of a future target? Seems more that "we will set a target" than "we want to but these lobbyists are making it really hard"


Yes, but it also says

> We are now looking to do this more broadly.

That's the part I'm asking about.


Thanks for the summary. I tried reading the linked page, the articles, and the home site, but there's a certain type of language that I have trouble wading through. My eyes glossed over at all the platitudes and bureaucrat-speak. The goals sound admirable, and I hope they succeed. However, I think their message would be improved by getting to the point of what they plan to do, how they plan to do it, and how it will be different / better than the internet we know today.

That's very ambitious. Do you know who they're targeting with this? Legacy systems perhaps?

> it means changing millions of people’s daily rituals and businesses schedules.

Last I checked that’s already well under way!


> “To continue to demonstrate why tools like this are essential to our mission, we need to use them, while also holding ourselves accountable for doing so properly and in compliance with legal requirements,”

Not sure why this is news.


> “Strengthen the construction of the national ‘Internet + supervision’ system, and realize the integration and aggregation of data from supervision platforms by the end of 2022.”

I'll bet they're pleased with you-know-who's you-know-what.


This is an odd posting. It's a (very) short history of the reasoning behind and purpose of the Mir project at Canonical, but doesn't hint at the future of the project or the team.

It's a dictionary definition more or less, but the timing seems like it has a great deal of meaning (in the wake of the Unity abandonment).


Well, yeah... I would imagine that's why this document exists and they are attempting to push it for the 2019 and 2020 agenda

Just to distill that statement into specifics, the "goal" as you see it literally says (1) they had no written record before, and now they will and (2) two other vendors did the actual work. There's nothing technical about it but it implies intent behind the recommendations.

IMO, that statement alone does illuminate a "solid solution", which is to reduce vendoring out some of these critical functions and gradually staff leadership with a mix of people who have significant hands-on experience with technology. Or more shortly, "care for properly."


I’m not really sure what your point is? The block was created on the that date, that had that title.

It’s a complete coincidence. Again if that was an explicit goal it would be in the white paper.


> A few things have been proposed: verification projects, and grace periods.

Is glorifying (and sending grants to) data collectors on the list?

next

Legal | privacy