Intro to the Me2B Alliance Testing Specification
Intro To The Me2B Alliance Testing Specification
Thursday 18F
Convener: Lisa LeVasseur
Notes-taker(s):
Tags for the session - technology discussed/ideas considered:
Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps:
Presentation here: http://me2ba.sharepoint.com/:b:/s/GoodCoPsWG/ERZT57fS-KlMsKHnQGCY-4IBeJIdzu_n5Dkg6i0yjHWEpg?e=Dc6aWe
Zoom Chat window:
From dsearls to Everyone: 09:43 AM A side thought: we can get this community more interested and involved if we say "Me" is SS (as in self-sovereign)
From Me to Everyone: 09:47 AM We have sovereignty, we aren't sovereign.
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 09:47 AM Classic tension in political identity theory: 1) Me-First: individuals are prior to society; 2) We-First: society is prior to individuals.
From Me to Everyone: 09:47 AM We2B
From Bill Wendel1 to Everyone: 09:47 AM YES, We2B
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 09:51 AM Me-First (Rousseau) vs. We-First (Foucault) +1 Doc “The personal is political and the political is personal.”
From Timothy Ruff to Everyone: 09:52 AM FYI Huseby hates the terminology SSI too
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 09:53 AM I actually like it for many reasons That friction with corporations is because there is actually a real power struggle.
From Timothy Ruff to Everyone: 09:54 AM
I like it for many reasons too, and dislike it for some bigger ones. :)
From mahod mah to Everyone: 09:54 AM notes in chat is good.. then we cut out from the file
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 09:55 AM Internal vs. external naming strategies: what we say to each other vs. what we say to oppositional parties we need to sell to.
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 09:59 AM Discussed 5 Assurances of testing Leaned independent testing would be more credible. Interviewed 20 various non-technical types about the idea of the seal.
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 10:00 AM People surveyed did not initially realize what they were giving up in order to use a “free” service.
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 10:01 AM Found that people e spoke to are not well versed in under the hood tech. Ex: "What are you giving for the 'Free Service?" revealed lack of top of mind sensibility of the value trade. Looking to give a Pass/Fail behavioral assessment.
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 10:01 AM The product or the company who sells it?
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 10:03 AM Key question in the survey: What am I giving, what am I getting and is the product holding up their end of the deal? Should the language in the survey be from the context of the individual or the company inquiry aspect, More outward facing.
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 10:05 AM Probably similar for Instagram
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 10:05 AM In general people perceive the relationship to be with the service and not the connected family. Love WhatsApp but hate Facebook.
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 10:06 AM People love Amazon for shopping vs. are mistrustful of Alexa-enabled devices.
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 10:07 AM Down to the one simple assurance Give, Get, Respect of the deal.
From dsearls to Everyone: 10:08 AM Craig Burton: every large and successful company is "a thousand tornadoes"— many companies, many personalities, in one. Example: Amazon is in the advertising business and its Eero home wi-fi mesh router bothers users on its app constantly to block ads at the network level, to speed up performance. There is also the verb "relate" and the noun "relationship." We might relate to a barista without having a relationship with the coffee shop.
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 10:10 AM Three Relationship States: None—reasonable expectation of anonymity; One-Off—performing a “typical transaction” without being remembered; Me2B Relationship—Remembered, Recognized, Responded To.
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 10:10 AM States of a relationship. No relationship - anonymity; Typical Transaction State w/o being remembered - sign up to gain function of service with embedding a relationship, one off; being remembered, recognized, responded to.
From mahod mah to Everyone: 10:10 AM Can you put the link in the chat?
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 10:12 AM Loyalty relationships as example of prior state. Working on surfacing Vectors of relationship. Working on surfacing vectors of relationships.
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 10:14 AM Joe Andrieu came up with functional identity concepts of: Remembered, Recognized, Responded To.
From mahod mah to Everyone: 10:15 AM http://blog.joeandrieu.com/category/functional-identity/
From Me to Everyone: 10:16 AM Johannes' session on CCPA/GDPR requesting data
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 10:21 AM Influencer as a highly viewable threat to all.
From dsearls to Everyone: 10:26 AM An aside: http://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=influencer I've been called that, and don't like it. Just saying.
From mahod mah to Everyone: 10:27 AM i think it’s awful and an attempt to separate and make people ‘micro famous’ and that fame model is so negative on our systems and society the conversational middle is where it’s at
From dsearls to Everyone: 10:27 AM David Weinberger: "In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen people."
From JeffO-StL to Everyone: 10:28 AM mahod: Agree Fame is a four letter word starting with "F". I told my daughter that we put caution tape around that word/concept.
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 10:32 AM Familiar with?: http://tosdr.org/
From Timothy Ruff to Everyone: 10:32 AM For clarity: platforms shouldn't have the power to separate an influencer from their audience (regardless of how I feel about that influencer). Influencers should have a direct relationship with (not ownership over) their audience, where either the influencer or the fan can choose to discontinue the relationship at any time, without either being beholden to any particular platform. It is the essence of user portability.
From dsearls to Everyone: 10:34 AM FWIW, in ProjectVRM we have a privacy manifesto that addresses Marc's points here.
http://cyber.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Privacy_Manifesto
From Me to Everyone: 10:38 AM Nathan Kinch is doing good work on readable TOS
progressive disclosure for TOS
oops
two separate thoughts there
reminds me of the levels of JLINC SISA
From Iain Henderson to Everyone: 10:39 AM yup, that is the JLINC SISA logic
From Marc Davis to Everyone: 10:42 AM Progressive Disclosure of Standardized TOS: 1) 7 +/- 2 Human-Readable Bullet Points; 2) Expandable to a single Human-Readable Paragraph; 3) Expandable to multiple Lawyer-Readable Paragraphs; 4) All expressed in Machine-Readable form as well
From Cam Geer to Everyone: 10:46 AM SMBs are a key part of the fabric of a community and they employment the most people in the US
From Bill Wendel1 to Everyone: 10:46 AM Real estate is an example of a multi=trillion dollar marketplace that is broken. To address Tim’s comment about the usefulness and VALUE from a consumer’s perspective. In real estate, there is a 4th level of a Me2B relationship (1) Being remembered, (2) Being recognised, (3) Being responded to, but the high value add doesn’t occur from the consumer’s perspective until (4) Being responded as a fiduciary. Me2B has the opportunity to extend the conversation about fiduciary duties in real estate beyond agency relationship in the buy/sell transaction to Information Fiducariary before, during, and AFTER the transaction as a homeowner.
From Iain Henderson to Everyone: 10:47 AM
Marc, I need to drop off now but i’ll send some screen shots of the JLINC standard information sharing agreement approach which has ‘the two sentence version that drills to the 3 paragraph one, then the full machine readable one. I’ll put them in the notes.
From Timothy Ruff to Everyone: 10:48 AM Check out community.com
It's a platform, but it's doing well because they're giving influencers a more direct relationship with their audience.
Influencers crave it. We could find a way to ride that toward adoption of our principles. Link to Nathan Kinch’s work on usable Terms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS-BlGlIg30&feature=youtu.be
