Topics

SIG Access, Inclusion, & Perpetuance


Taylor Kendal
 

@David (et. al.)...

I want to float a few ideas your way related to access/inclusion. As with many SIGs that emerge from a highly technical substrate (e.g. Linux/IBM), they're often entirely inaccessible (surely unintentionally) to those such a group is ultimately (I think/hope) meant to benefit/serve (i.e. the less-privileged majority). I'd be curious to know if this group would be appropriate for exploring new processes and strategies that blow open the doors to what still feels (IMHO, and again, unintentionally) like an insiders club with the potential to perpetuate systemic divides as opposed to closing them. 

E.g. What about a simple text-based interaction mechanism that allows everyone to have a voice in how this work evolves or the exploration of new democratizing governance mechanisms? 

*this stems from a conversation Matt Gee and I had regarding the imagining and building of new networks that deviate drastically (and intentionally) from those we've traditionally relied upon. If we don't change our own practices, I'm not sure we can expect to affect the educational systems and architectures we claim to have an interest in (re)defining.

Food for thought...with a slight bend towards action :)


Phillip Long
 

Taylor: I like the idea very much. A core part of your idea is that we make an effort to really try to speak in clear, and to the extent possible, non-jargon laden language. That is a valuable goal and perhaps should be part of a set of principles or similar community guidelines. 

I think there might be ways to do this that leverage tools we might be able to use without a monthly fee. 

For example, for the text-based communications, besides the list we have with the wiki site, we might consider using Telegram or Fleep.io - neither has a user fee, though the free versions do have various limitations.  

I’m an active Telegram user and one reason is they encrypt messages. if you are really concerned, you can use it in so-called secret chats that are peer-to-peer (no intermediary server storing the message) and if you really care, you can time their destruction. 

Aargon I looked at some time ago when DAOs were of rising interest. I’m a little concerned about the token-based attributes of governance.  I get that in public blockchain environments a central design principle is incenting sustainable participation. Rewarding participants through tokenization of interactions is one way to do that. Perhaps it’s not necessary to implement this attribute in simple organizations, but if anything along the lines of formal goverance and dispute resolution is envisioned then they have a proof of stake like approach to the roles that are required.

I’m interested to hear what others have to say about the idea. I understand the argument that if we aren’t willing to adopt some of the attributes and tools ourselves that we’re advocating are essential to reframe our practices and organizations  for the changing world, then we’re unlikely to get adoption by those skeptical of them.  In this early and rapidly changing stage of DLT evolution are we at a point that running EASIG on something like Aragon.org to use it’s distributed democracy features is worth the effort? That’s not a criticism - just an honest question.


Cheers,
 Phil

P.S. Currently 1 ANT = 0.031709 ETH, and the USD value of ETH is 1 ETH=$177.12 USD, so 1 ANT = $5.62  (at least tonight ;-)

Faculty Affiliate, ASU
e: pdlong2@...
Senior Scholar, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship (CNDLS)
Georgetown University
e: pl673@...
Founder and Principal
RHz Consulting LLC
Inquire-Listen-Design-Prototype-Analyze-Repeat
e: phil@...
LinkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/in/longpd

On Oct 3, 2019, at 11:03 PM, Taylor Kendal <wkendal@...> wrote:

@David (et. al.)...

I want to float a few ideas your way related to access/inclusion. As with many SIGs that emerge from a highly technical substrate (e.g. Linux/IBM), they're often entirely inaccessible (surely unintentionally) to those such a group is ultimately (I think/hope) meant to benefit/serve (i.e. the less-privileged majority). I'd be curious to know if this group would be appropriate for exploring new processes and strategies that blow open the doors to what still feels (IMHO, and again, unintentionally) like an insiders club with the potential to perpetuate systemic divides as opposed to closing them. 

E.g. What about a simple text-based interaction mechanism that allows everyone to have a voice in how this work evolves or the exploration of new democratizing governance mechanisms? 

*this stems from a conversation Matt Gee and I had regarding the imagining and building of new networks that deviate drastically (and intentionally) from those we've traditionally relied upon. If we don't change our own practices, I'm not sure we can expect to affect the educational systems and architectures we claim to have an interest in (re)defining.

Food for thought...with a slight bend towards action :)


Taylor Kendal
 

Phil,

Yup! If such an exercise (or set of principles) only shifts us away from the jargon and toward an inclusive lexicon, then I think it’d be ROI positive. 

I should clarify that my thought with something like Superphone (or perhaps there’s a more secure web3 equivalent) isn’t to introduce another messaging platform (Tgram/Signal/Keybase), but instead to afford access to anyone who can send a text message (dumb phones inc.). So more about inclusivity than “walking the talk,” but I think both are important. Pushing similar conversation within T3 currently.  

From my understanding, Aragon is very adaptable (ANT to steer platform evolution but not required). Would certainly want to ensure that it was of value and not leveraged for the sole purpose of putting our web3 money where our mouth is (speaking of jargon...more idioms anyone?) Guilty ✋

Very interested in others’ thoughts as well. 

>> Not sure that math checks out. ANT has been sub $1 since last year. 👇https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/aragon/


Hou, Feng
 

I just noticed that for some reason, some of the emails got in my spam email box, so I apologize for the lack of response. With that being said, yes, today is the deadline for submitting the proposal. I just created an account for application and am suggesting to the group the following to be considered along with the ideas that both Taylor and Phil have shared:

 

Recently, Salesforce has announced Universal Learner Record on blockchain and is supposedly piloting with ASU. The White House Science and Technology Advisory Board has issued a guideline for the Interoperable Learner Record. Here at Maryville University, we are developing what we call a career focused lifelong learner profile, and so far as I know Deloitte is developing something similar on blockchain. With all these disparate efforts, I’d like to discuss 2 things: one is the delivery mechanism and the other is interoperability. There are a number of topics, both business and technical, that this discussion can tap into.

 

I’d like to know what the rest of the group think about it. I am setting aside this whole afternoon to work on the proposal and appreciate if anyone would join me.

 

Thanks!

 

Feng

 

 

From: education-architecture-sig@... [mailto:education-architecture-sig@...] On Behalf Of Phillip Long
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 10:59 PM
To: education-architecture-sig@...
Subject: Re: [education-architecture-sig] SIG Access, Inclusion, & Perpetuance

 

Taylor: I like the idea very much. A core part of your idea is that we make an effort to really try to speak in clear, and to the extent possible, non-jargon laden language. That is a valuable goal and perhaps should be part of a set of principles or similar community guidelines. 

 

I think there might be ways to do this that leverage tools we might be able to use without a monthly fee. 

 

For example, for the text-based communications, besides the list we have with the wiki site, we might consider using Telegram or Fleep.io - neither has a user fee, though the free versions do have various limitations.  

 

I’m an active Telegram user and one reason is they encrypt messages. if you are really concerned, you can use it in so-called secret chats that are peer-to-peer (no intermediary server storing the message) and if you really care, you can time their destruction. 

Aargon I looked at some time ago when DAOs were of rising interest. I’m a little concerned about the token-based attributes of governance.  I get that in public blockchain environments a central design principle is incenting sustainable participation. Rewarding participants through tokenization of interactions is one way to do that. Perhaps it’s not necessary to implement this attribute in simple organizations, but if anything along the lines of formal goverance and dispute resolution is envisioned then they have a proof of stake like approach to the roles that are required.

 

I’m interested to hear what others have to say about the idea. I understand the argument that if we aren’t willing to adopt some of the attributes and tools ourselves that we’re advocating are essential to reframe our practices and organizations  for the changing world, then we’re unlikely to get adoption by those skeptical of them.  In this early and rapidly changing stage of DLT evolution are we at a point that running EASIG on something like Aragon.org to use it’s distributed democracy features is worth the effort? That’s not a criticism - just an honest question.

 

 

Cheers,

 Phil

 

P.S. Currently 1 ANT = 0.031709 ETH, and the USD value of ETH is 1 ETH=$177.12 USD, so 1 ANT = $5.62  (at least tonight ;-)

 

Faculty Affiliate, ASU

Senior Scholar, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship (CNDLS)

Georgetown University

Founder and Principal

RHz Consulting LLC

Inquire-Listen-Design-Prototype-Analyze-Repeat

LinkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/in/longpd



On Oct 3, 2019, at 11:03 PM, Taylor Kendal <wkendal@...> wrote:

@David (et. al.)...

I want to float a few ideas your way related to access/inclusion. As with many SIGs that emerge from a highly technical substrate (e.g. Linux/IBM), they're often entirely inaccessible (surely unintentionally) to those such a group is ultimately (I think/hope) meant to benefit/serve (i.e. the less-privileged majority). I'd be curious to know if this group would be appropriate for exploring new processes and strategies that blow open the doors to what still feels (IMHO, and again, unintentionally) like an insiders club with the potential to perpetuate systemic divides as opposed to closing them. 

E.g. What about a simple text-based interaction mechanism that allows everyone to have a voice in how this work evolves or the exploration of new democratizing governance mechanisms? 

*this stems from a conversation Matt Gee and I had regarding the imagining and building of new networks that deviate drastically (and intentionally) from those we've traditionally relied upon. If we don't change our own practices, I'm not sure we can expect to affect the educational systems and architectures we claim to have an interest in (re)defining.

Food for thought...with a slight bend towards action :)


Alex Kaplan
 

Feng: I like the idea. I think we should work off the Interoperable Learning Record report from the White House, which is really about the skills gap and how ILRs can help close that gap. With the skills gap as the frame, we can discuss how blockchain can be a facilitating technology to close that gap. This is a timely and relevant discussion upon which to anchor our presentation proposal, and a great blockchain use case aligned with our SIGs mission.




On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:04 AM -0600, "Hou, Feng" <fhou@...> wrote:

I just noticed that for some reason, some of the emails got in my spam email box, so I apologize for the lack of response. With that being said, yes, today is the deadline for submitting the proposal. I just created an account for application and am suggesting to the group the following to be considered along with the ideas that both Taylor and Phil have shared:

 

Recently, Salesforce has announced Universal Learner Record on blockchain and is supposedly piloting with ASU. The White House Science and Technology Advisory Board has issued a guideline for the Interoperable Learner Record. Here at Maryville University, we are developing what we call a career focused lifelong learner profile, and so far as I know Deloitte is developing something similar on blockchain. With all these disparate efforts, I’d like to discuss 2 things: one is the delivery mechanism and the other is interoperability. There are a number of topics, both business and technical, that this discussion can tap into.

 

I’d like to know what the rest of the group think about it. I am setting aside this whole afternoon to work on the proposal and appreciate if anyone would join me.

 

Thanks!

 

Feng

 

 

From: education-architecture-sig@... [mailto:education-architecture-sig@...] On Behalf Of Phillip Long
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 10:59 PM
To: education-architecture-sig@...
Subject: Re: [education-architecture-sig] SIG Access, Inclusion, & Perpetuance

 

Taylor: I like the idea very much. A core part of your idea is that we make an effort to really try to speak in clear, and to the extent possible, non-jargon laden language. That is a valuable goal and perhaps should be part of a set of principles or similar community guidelines. 

 

I think there might be ways to do this that leverage tools we might be able to use without a monthly fee. 

 

For example, for the text-based communications, besides the list we have with the wiki site, we might consider using Telegram or Fleep.io - neither has a user fee, though the free versions do have various limitations.  

 

I’m an active Telegram user and one reason is they encrypt messages. if you are really concerned, you can use it in so-called secret chats that are peer-to-peer (no intermediary server storing the message) and if you really care, you can time their destruction. 

Aargon I looked at some time ago when DAOs were of rising interest. I’m a little concerned about the token-based attributes of governance.  I get that in public blockchain environments a central design principle is incenting sustainable participation. Rewarding participants through tokenization of interactions is one way to do that. Perhaps it’s not necessary to implement this attribute in simple organizations, but if anything along the lines of formal goverance and dispute resolution is envisioned then they have a proof of stake like approach to the roles that are required.

 

I’m interested to hear what others have to say about the idea. I understand the argument that if we aren’t willing to adopt some of the attributes and tools ourselves that we’re advocating are essential to reframe our practices and organizations  for the changing world, then we’re unlikely to get adoption by those skeptical of them.  In this early and rapidly changing stage of DLT evolution are we at a point that running EASIG on something like Aragon.org to use it’s distributed democracy features is worth the effort? That’s not a criticism - just an honest question.

 

 

Cheers,

 Phil

 

P.S. Currently 1 ANT = 0.031709 ETH, and the USD value of ETH is 1 ETH=$177.12 USD, so 1 ANT = $5.62  (at least tonight ;-)

 

Faculty Affiliate, ASU

Senior Scholar, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship (CNDLS)

Georgetown University

Founder and Principal

RHz Consulting LLC

Inquire-Listen-Design-Prototype-Analyze-Repeat

LinkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/in/longpd



On Oct 3, 2019, at 11:03 PM, Taylor Kendal <wkendal@...> wrote:

@David (et. al.)...

I want to float a few ideas your way related to access/inclusion. As with many SIGs that emerge from a highly technical substrate (e.g. Linux/IBM), they're often entirely inaccessible (surely unintentionally) to those such a group is ultimately (I think/hope) meant to benefit/serve (i.e. the less-privileged majority). I'd be curious to know if this group would be appropriate for exploring new processes and strategies that blow open the doors to what still feels (IMHO, and again, unintentionally) like an insiders club with the potential to perpetuate systemic divides as opposed to closing them. 

E.g. What about a simple text-based interaction mechanism that allows everyone to have a voice in how this work evolves or the exploration of new democratizing governance mechanisms? 

*this stems from a conversation Matt Gee and I had regarding the imagining and building of new networks that deviate drastically (and intentionally) from those we've traditionally relied upon. If we don't change our own practices, I'm not sure we can expect to affect the educational systems and architectures we claim to have an interest in (re)defining.

Food for thought...with a slight bend towards action :)


--

Alex Kaplan

Global Leader, Blockchain and AI for Credentials

IBM Talent and Transformation

600 Anton Blvd.

Costa Mesa, CA, 92626-7221

(949) 701-2898

www.linkedin.com/in/alexkaplanibm


Phillip Long
 

Feng: please use the term Trusted Learner Record (TLR).  That’s what we’re using at ASU now, and Salesforce has harmonized with us on that terminology. The term ULR had some trademark issues ;-)

There is much activity in workforce skills taxonomies, e.g., the recent open sourcing of the EMSI skills taxonomy. A similar effort is underway at the job title taxonomy level through JDX. 

We (ASU) like you, have included skill clusters as a part of the individuals Trusted Learner Record. At present we’re preferencing the EMSI skills taxonomy approach. However, the salient issue is how these are represented in the JSON data model. 

I think there is a significant question about what should be on vs. off-chain, and if off-chain whether the intent is to preserve the authenticity and therefore verifiability of the off-chain data.  This is both a technical issue about the potential size implications of on-chain records and its performance implications, as well as an issue what is appropriate for storing in a record intended to be lifelong. 

But how you approach this begins with where you are starting from, and that is your decision to work from public chain architecture or a permissioned chain architecture. Much of what follows is usually shaped by that initial starting point.

I’m available off and on today. If I can assist please let me know. Probably quickest if you text or if you use Telegram that works too. My mobile is 512-969-1774. My Telegram handle is RadHertz. 

My time frees up after 5:30 pm  ET today. I don’t recall the deadline in terms of the hour so after 5:30 pm ET might not be very helpful. If the deadline is midnight ET, then we have loads of time!  ;-)

Cheers,
 Phil
 (P1)

Faculty Affiliate, ASU
e: pdlong2@...
Senior Scholar, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship (CNDLS)
Georgetown University
e: pl673@...
Founder and Principal
RHz Consulting LLC
Inquire-Listen-Design-Prototype-Analyze-Repeat
e: phil@...
LinkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/in/longpd

On Oct 4, 2019, at 10:04 AM, Hou, Feng <fhou@...> wrote:



I just noticed that for some reason, some of the emails got in my spam email box, so I apologize for the lack of response. With that being said, yes, today is the deadline for submitting the proposal. I just created an account for application and am suggesting to the group the following to be considered along with the ideas that both Taylor and Phil have shared:

 

Recently, Salesforce has announced Universal Learner Record on blockchain and is supposedly piloting with ASU. The White House Science and Technology Advisory Board has issued a guideline for the Interoperable Learner Record. Here at Maryville University, we are developing what we call a career focused lifelong learner profile, and so far as I know Deloitte is developing something similar on blockchain. With all these disparate efforts, I’d like to discuss 2 things: one is the delivery mechanism and the other is interoperability. There are a number of topics, both business and technical, that this discussion can tap into.

 

I’d like to know what the rest of the group think about it. I am setting aside this whole afternoon to work on the proposal and appreciate if anyone would join me.

 

Thanks!

 

Feng

 

 

From: education-architecture-sig@... [mailto:education-architecture-sig@...] On Behalf Of Phillip Long
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 10:59 PM
To: education-architecture-sig@...
Subject: Re: [education-architecture-sig] SIG Access, Inclusion, & Perpetuance

 

Taylor: I like the idea very much. A core part of your idea is that we make an effort to really try to speak in clear, and to the extent possible, non-jargon laden language. That is a valuable goal and perhaps should be part of a set of principles or similar community guidelines. 

 

I think there might be ways to do this that leverage tools we might be able to use without a monthly fee. 

 

For example, for the text-based communications, besides the list we have with the wiki site, we might consider using Telegram or Fleep.io - neither has a user fee, though the free versions do have various limitations.  

 

I’m an active Telegram user and one reason is they encrypt messages. if you are really concerned, you can use it in so-called secret chats that are peer-to-peer (no intermediary server storing the message) and if you really care, you can time their destruction. 

Aargon I looked at some time ago when DAOs were of rising interest. I’m a little concerned about the token-based attributes of governance.  I get that in public blockchain environments a central design principle is incenting sustainable participation. Rewarding participants through tokenization of interactions is one way to do that. Perhaps it’s not necessary to implement this attribute in simple organizations, but if anything along the lines of formal goverance and dispute resolution is envisioned then they have a proof of stake like approach to the roles that are required.

 

I’m interested to hear what others have to say about the idea. I understand the argument that if we aren’t willing to adopt some of the attributes and tools ourselves that we’re advocating are essential to reframe our practices and organizations  for the changing world, then we’re unlikely to get adoption by those skeptical of them.  In this early and rapidly changing stage of DLT evolution are we at a point that running EASIG on something like Aragon.org to use it’s distributed democracy features is worth the effort? That’s not a criticism - just an honest question.

 

 

Cheers,

 Phil

 

P.S. Currently 1 ANT = 0.031709 ETH, and the USD value of ETH is 1 ETH=$177.12 USD, so 1 ANT = $5.62  (at least tonight ;-)

 

Faculty Affiliate, ASU

Senior Scholar, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship (CNDLS)

Georgetown University

Founder and Principal

RHz Consulting LLC

Inquire-Listen-Design-Prototype-Analyze-Repeat

LinkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/in/longpd



On Oct 3, 2019, at 11:03 PM, Taylor Kendal <wkendal@...> wrote:

@David (et. al.)...

I want to float a few ideas your way related to access/inclusion. As with many SIGs that emerge from a highly technical substrate (e.g. Linux/IBM), they're often entirely inaccessible (surely unintentionally) to those such a group is ultimately (I think/hope) meant to benefit/serve (i.e. the less-privileged majority). I'd be curious to know if this group would be appropriate for exploring new processes and strategies that blow open the doors to what still feels (IMHO, and again, unintentionally) like an insiders club with the potential to perpetuate systemic divides as opposed to closing them. 

E.g. What about a simple text-based interaction mechanism that allows everyone to have a voice in how this work evolves or the exploration of new democratizing governance mechanisms? 

*this stems from a conversation Matt Gee and I had regarding the imagining and building of new networks that deviate drastically (and intentionally) from those we've traditionally relied upon. If we don't change our own practices, I'm not sure we can expect to affect the educational systems and architectures we claim to have an interest in (re)defining.

Food for thought...with a slight bend towards action :)


David Boswell
 

Taylor,

Thanks for starting this thread and helping us think through how we can be an inclusive group where new people can easily get involved.  I think this is important for a number of reasons and am glad we're considering it early as the group is getting started.

Other special interest groups do explicitly view themselves this way -- for instance, the Healthcare group views part of it's role to include onboarding new people into the group and helping them be successful.   Perhaps there are some best practices we can borrow from how they are set up.  For reference, they are at:


And if you're interested in making Hyperledger as a whole inclusive and want to talk through ideas with others who are interested in this subject, please note that we recently created a Diversity, Civility and Inclusion Working Group.  Feel free to share ideas and ask questions with that group.


For next steps with our group, I think including a standing item on our calls about what we can do to be more inclusive may be a good idea.  This will help us keep it top of mind as we meet.

Thanks,
David


On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 8:02 PM Taylor Kendal <wkendal@...> wrote:
@David (et. al.)...

I want to float a few ideas your way related to access/inclusion. As with many SIGs that emerge from a highly technical substrate (e.g. Linux/IBM), they're often entirely inaccessible (surely unintentionally) to those such a group is ultimately (I think/hope) meant to benefit/serve (i.e. the less-privileged majority). I'd be curious to know if this group would be appropriate for exploring new processes and strategies that blow open the doors to what still feels (IMHO, and again, unintentionally) like an insiders club with the potential to perpetuate systemic divides as opposed to closing them. 

E.g. What about a simple text-based interaction mechanism that allows everyone to have a voice in how this work evolves or the exploration of new democratizing governance mechanisms? 

*this stems from a conversation Matt Gee and I had regarding the imagining and building of new networks that deviate drastically (and intentionally) from those we've traditionally relied upon. If we don't change our own practices, I'm not sure we can expect to affect the educational systems and architectures we claim to have an interest in (re)defining.

Food for thought...with a slight bend towards action :)


Taylor Kendal
 

David,

It's good to hear that you too recognize the concern and thanks for sharing the related groups. Though not your intention, I suppose this really illustrates the issue. I happen to have the means (technically and by way of my connection to you) of accessing these wikis/groups in order to shape, and in turn benefit from, the shared discourse. This just isn't the case for the vast majority of those who should at least have a window to peer into (even w/ a devoted focus towards onboarding).

I just want us to think about ways of drastically lowering the bar for entry into the world of web3, which in most cases means entirely new paradigms, not small shifts to current/established practices. I thought a text messaging-based community arm would at least be an interesting pilot towards this end. Bringing it into the next call sounds like a great start.


Phil Komarny
 

Taylor,

I agree with you on using more inclusive methods to inspire anyone with an idea to share it. Glad we are going to broach this at our next meeting. 

Thanks,
Phil


On Oct 4, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Taylor Kendal <wkendal@...> wrote:

David,

It's good to hear that you too recognize the concern and thanks for sharing the related groups. Though not your intention, I suppose this really illustrates the issue. I happen to have the means (technically and by way of my connection to you) of accessing these wikis/groups in order to shape, and in turn benefit from, the shared discourse. This just isn't the case for the vast majority of those who should at least have a window to peer into (even w/ a devoted focus towards onboarding).

I just want us to think about ways of drastically lowering the bar for entry into the world of web3, which in most cases means entirely new paradigms, not small shifts to current/established practices. I thought a text messaging-based community arm would at least be an interesting pilot towards this end. Bringing it into the next call sounds like a great start.


sharon.leu@...
 

It's great to discuss accessibility to the media of our conversation.  Another approach would be to focus on the nature of our discussion and the individuals that we are bringing into the group.  Let's also use our time on Wednesday to brainstorm ways to intentionally diversify the perspectives represented in this group.  


Taylor Kendal
 

Yeah, it’s likely a reframing of the nature of the conversations and thinking about invitation/access. I suppose it’s also the reality of the “SI” element of any SIG. not everyone enjoys digging into the nerdy weeds of this work so there’s an inevitable element of self-imposed exclusion.  

I’m also watching this tool closely (which, ironically, has had a hard beta wall up restricting access). https://www.community.com/