Dear Peter S.,

Thank you for finding and contacting us! First of all, we're happy to welcome you!

We just started as a workgroup. Maybe better: We are starting. Thanks to everyone who shares our efforts, you've found us...

This initiative must come from libraries, because of their shared concerns and aims to preserve privacy, even on a broader plane then just federated SSO. It's about the core ethics of protecting academic freedom by safeguarding privacy.

Of course there editorial issues, we're more looking at the technical part and possibilities right now. If you have suggestions, please let it know. It's a document with public link and comment permissions.

So, welcome;)

Jos

Jos Westerbeke Library IT Specialist / Demandmanager | Erasmus University Rotterdam | Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Library | 3062PA Rotterdam | jos.westerbeke@eur.nl | +31 640295513

Op 18-03-19 10:24 heeft Fim4l namens Peter Schober <fim4l-bounces@lists.daasi.de namens peter.schober@univie.ac.at> geschreven:

Dear all,

I've recently subscribed to this list due to Raoul dropped its short name (FIM4L) on another mailing list and from then finding a czech language presentations on the Internet with contained links to this mailing list.

The "charter" document referenced by Jiří yesterday answers a few of my questions with regard to the background (and possibly funding) of this effort but raises others (E.g. Why is this not a REFEDS Working Group? How come the identity federation community at large has never heard of this and has not been given a chance to provide input but eduGAIN, GEANT and REFEDS are already listed as "parties involved in this effort"? etc.)

Both the charter and especially the "FIM4L guidelines and recommendations" documents referenced in the mail yesterday are fraught with issues, IMHO, both substantial and structural/editorial.

So how do you want to handle this? Should I wait like everyone else who hasn't been invited into this effort until you consider those documents ready for wider publication? Or do you want to gather more input now -- but then why limit that additional input to myself only because I've managed to even find this list and not the wider community?

Best regards, -peter _______________________________________________ Fim4l mailing list Fim4l@lists.daasi.de http://lists.daasi.de/listinfo/fim4l

Dear Peter S.,

wonderful to see you here, your input is most appreciated.

Let me reply in-line in addition to and on the same line of Jos' reply:

Am 18.03.2019 um 10:24 schrieb Peter Schober:

Dear all,

I've recently subscribed to this list due to Raoul dropped its short name (FIM4L) on another mailing list and from then finding a czech language presentations on the Internet with contained links to this mailing list.

The "charter" document referenced by Jiří yesterday answers a few of my questions with regard to the background (and possibly funding) of this effort but raises others (E.g. Why is this not a REFEDS Working Group? How come the identity federation community at large has never heard of this and has not been given a chance to provide input but eduGAIN, GEANT and REFEDS are already listed as "parties involved in this effort"? etc.)

So there is a simple reason for this: this is a library driven activity and we first wanted to gain attraction in that community. There are also RA21 members here, which I also think is beneficial. In a later stage of course it was planned to go public and involve all those communities you mentioned.

As to what kind of WG this eventually will become, we have, out of the above mentioned reasons, rather LIBER in mind than REFEDS.

We have learned from the library community that there are rather political reasons not for going away from IP based authentication and so we didn't want to go public too soon.

We didn't exclude the community you are representing totally, since this is sort of an offspring of AARC 1 and we did inform the AARC people and GEANT staff was continuously in the loop.

Both the charter and especially the "FIM4L guidelines and recommendations" documents referenced in the mail yesterday are fraught with issues, IMHO, both substantial and structural/editorial.

And please keep in mind: it is work in progress done by people that have a work life...

So how do you want to handle this? Should I wait like everyone else who hasn't been invited into this effort until you consider those documents ready for wider publication? Or do you want to gather more input now -- but then why limit that additional input to myself only because I've managed to even find this list and not the wider community?

So the idea was, that the initial group find a consensus on a first version of charter and recommendations and then go public to request for comments.

So eventually we would have told you and the NREN community about us, no worries.

As to your participation, as I said in the beginning: most welcome.

@all: to whom that do not know Peter S.: he is a real expert in FIM and is in charge of the Austrian Research AAI and is one of the most active posters in respective FIM related lists.

Cheers, Peter G.

Best regards, -peter _______________________________________________ Fim4l mailing list Fim4l@lists.daasi.de http://lists.daasi.de/listinfo/fim4l