Re: Work Items [was:Re: Interoperability WG - follow up/next steps - #3 meeting]
Taylor Kendal <taylor@...>
Echoing thanks for everyone’s approach to this thread. Often, we end up deep in the weeds (which I can’t help but read as chest pounding) without the consideration for those who may be on the outside lookin in.
The reiterating, reframing, contextualizing, and ...metaphoring (sp.) is appreciated. Also, the durability (and portability) of the thinking increases exponentially—pontoon bridges for the people!
I did mistakingly read Juan’s signoff as ‘interlopers’ ...ironically antithetical to the goals of interopers :)
Taylor Kendal, CPO
From: interop-wg@DIF.groups.io <interop-wg@DIF.groups.io> on behalf of Juan Caballero <juan.caballero@...>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 8:18 AM
Cc: Balázs Némethi
Subject: Re: [InteropProject] Work Items [was:Re: Interoperability WG - follow up/next steps - #3 meeting]
This is a great conversation, and I value every contribution to it so far. I would just like to underscore a few points:
Adrian, Sankarshan, Daniel and I all seem to agree that "interop" relative to a static or pre-defined stack or layered model (whether in SDS or in the entire stack) is a dangerously broad commitment that risks putting the cart before the horse, or in Daniel's Catan-like extended metaphor of the development archipelago, building concrete bridges to low-value, uninhabited islands. I think we can all agree that a over-broad, ocean-boiling interop profile could waste more time than it saves, particularly if it fails to set priorities and timelines reasonably. That said, breaking down that overbroad commitment into a debatable, mix-and-matchable list of more concrete and narrow goals would be a useful counterbalance to the pragmatism of realistic short-term goals which could lead us to premature standardization if not counterbalanced. (Shout out to Daniel's humility and fairness in describing some points in our shared past where premature standardization was narrowly avoided!)
One of those constituent principles is data portability, which is foremost among my personal ideological commitments. But Adrian is very right to point out that data portability might be the least controversial or least costly to defend of the constituent
principles bandied about in this community's manifestos. Data portability is only one kind of portability, and many other kinds of platform or business-model lock-in exist beyond proprietary blockchains and proprietary clouds. Another principle worth balancing
against the exigencies of the present are cryptographic agility, or as Nathan George once defined it to me, "forward-compatibility and backwards-security". Less a principle than a duty that might belong on this list is
strategies to mitigate cryptographic gatekeeping: needless archipelagos have already been created by key governments enforcing allowlists and blocklists of crypto suites in their budget appropriations. If I can nerd out a little,
Connection/contact portability, Wallet portability, policy/control portability,
inception-event specification/interop and cloud portability have all been floated in recent weeks as bridges worth specifying or beginning to build, which reflect principles lower down the priority list but not front of mind for most profit-maximizing
businesses. These are all items for the interop WG's agenda, even if the result of each discussion could well be "let's discuss again in 6 more months".
I wholeheartedly agree that Orie has been doing an insane amount of work to date trying to get contingent, good-enough-for-now specs in place that lay the groundwork for a truly competitive and open-protocol-driven stack built over the next few years. The
Interop WG has high on its short-term priorities:
On 7/24/2020 3:16 PM, Mike Varley wrote:
-- ----------------- Juan Caballero Communications & Research Lead Spherity GmbH, Emil-Figge-Straße 80, 44227 Dortmund Next meetup 18/5: https://spherity_open_office2.eventbrite.com/ Berlin-based: +49 1573 5994525 Signal/whatsapp: +1 415-3101351