InCommon Technical Discussions

[Steven Carmody <>]

I mostly agree with this proposal.

I think the IC membership is made up of three constituencies:

-- the previously identified two (campuses willing to support their 
researchers, "the other campuses" (the 300)

-- campuses interested in the Cert Service, and having no interest in 
Federation. This is a separate topic.

The previous effort to grow R&S IDP support from a low number to 100+ 
required an intense one-on-one effort by IC Steering members. Von (and 
LIGO) supplied a list of "desired" campuses, and Steering members called 
CIOs they they knew whose campuses were on that list. It mostly worked 
(altho some CIOs did in fact say NO!).

I find Scott K's statement "there are roughly 100 InCommon Participant
campuses that could and would, if mandated, implement changes
to make the trust fabric more scalable and simply more trusted" to be 
optimistic. I might say "with direct pressure from a CIO colleague, and 
the threat of shaming, many campus could and would ....".

I can't avoid noticing that these 100+ campuses did NOT self-identify as 
needing R&S, even though many of them are large (and proud) research 
institutions. Just another bit of the damage from the disconnect between 
central IT and their researchers.

And I also suspect that IC is NOT talking to the people on these 100+ 
campuses who really care about this issue (does IC talk directly to the 
head of the campus Research Office ?).

Lastly, if a project includes a researcher from one of "the 300", what's 
the recommendation ? They should use one of the non-advertised IDPoLR 
services ?

On 3/30/17 9:40 AM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
> On 3/30/17, 7:06 AM, 
> "
>  on
> behalf of Scott Koranda" 
> <
>  on
> behalf of 
> >
>  wrote:
>
> > Yet a lot of energy and resources are spent attempting to motivate
> > those 300 to operate like the 100, even though those 300
> > fundamentally do not have the drivers that might push them to
> > operate at the higher level.
> >
> > So my proposal is to stop trying.
>
> Independent of any technical direction, +1 to that assessment of
> where our energy should be focused.
>
> -- ScottC