bhaugen
commented
7 years ago A little more:
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:17 are you worried about people with no agent-relationship to the group saying they make a commitment?
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:17 this way group can use whatever participants agree on to manage access to that feed well, if we consider commitment made by group, we need to have a way to verify that group plans to honor it so we can have a way that doesn't require analyzing agent <-> agent relationships and who authored the commitment
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:19 seems like this happens all the time in ecommerce, and people don't worry about it..... ?
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:19 if it appears on the list referenced by group as 'official list of our commitments' then other agents can consider it commitment of a group
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:20 so Amazon website == official list of our commitments (or intents)? but if it is in LOD, you need more?
elf-pavlik
ahdinosaur
almereyda
Preface
If we allow group agents, as I think we do, then they need to have agency. For example, make commitments with other groups, like in a federation of groups.
From gitter chat: elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 10:57 i think we may better discuss issues around 'context agent' here so we don't use github issues as real time chat :wink:
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 10:57 :wave: I told Lynn that I was ok with you and she starting out with just individuals and groups, no context agent concept at first add it if and when we need it but I predict that the first way somebody will want it will be "company". That's why we added context agent, to avoid baking in company or anything remotely like it.
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 10:59 great! i think we still need to look at Agent <-> Agent relationship which specifies which individual agents can make commitments 'on behalf' of group agent
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:00 that's what the Scuttleverse is talking about. We need to get MIkey into the conversation. I'll see what I can find that is on the Web.
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:02 cool! i think that we may simply define an Agent <-> Agent relationship which means that referenced agent can make commitments on behalf of referencing agent
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:02 Maybe you could start an issue about that topic and I'll float it by the scuttlers I think they have a more nuanced set of ideas about the topic but that relationship might be enuf for now
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:03 cool! i think that we may simply define an Agent <-> Agent relationship which means that referenced agent can make commitments on behalf of referencing agent like some specific code on the relationship? the scuttlers may have a whole different way of thinking about it, i suppose
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:03 not whole different way and I don't think they are done yet
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:03 we can even start with 'committer'
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:03 they they are looking at it from the viewpoint of a protocol
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:04 interesting
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:04 what is a group identity?
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:04 so to see who can commit on behalf of the group, we just need to see who group references as 'committer'
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:04 what makes up a group?
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:05 they are deep!
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:05 if a group posts something, who did it come from? everything is represented by a cryptographic key all nodes in the scuttleverse if that key identifies a group, what does that mean? if the group identity posts something, what does that mean?
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:06 i would like to start with not 'posing as group' but 'posting as oneself on behalf of the group' and other individuals can endorse it with signature or more than individual can 'author' a post and each one signs it with one's own signature
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:07 i would hope that groups have their own formal or informal internal governance and that not everyone needs to sign every post though!
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:07 who wants to start an issue that I can ask the scuttlers about?
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:07 committers is a more narrow issue
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:07 i feel very hesitant about 'group identity posting'
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:08 i know that
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:08 sounds to me like 'a voice of big brother' :wink:
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:08 why?
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:09 i like where people stand behind their statements, while they still can claim to make them 'on behalf' of the group
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:09 like it is a problem if you don't know who posted for the group? or how many people in the group agree?
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:09 still distinction of 'group made statement' vs. 'one or more individual made statement on behalf of the group' seems important to me
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:10 ok
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:10 do you think that groups can make commitments to other groups?
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:10 individuals can make commitments 'on behalf' of the group
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:10 what if that individual leaves the group? happens all the time
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:11 since group authorized that individual to make commitments 'on behalf' of it, i think one may expect group to still respect it
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:11 if an individual makes a commitment on behalf of a group, can we assume that the group endorsed that commitment?
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:11 yes, by endorsing that individual with something like 'committer' relationship
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:11 I think we crisscrossed
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:12 so there are various roles within a group that have 'permission' to do certain things... post, agree, commit, etc.?
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:12 I think the scuttlers are thinking about something like specific group endorsements of specific commitments made on behalf of the group
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:12 on behalf of the group there will be also many things that anyone in the group can do
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:13 not a role, but we as a group have come to agreement on makign thie commitment this commitmemt
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:13 like sensorica, anyone can make a commitment, a plan, etc.; in Freedon Coop, they want to assign special role of coordinator for planning
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:13 however we as a group come to agreement on things
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:14 in Freedon Coop, they want to assign special role of coordinator for planning i think i see 'committer' relationship/role in such way
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:14 (sorry i was thinking that where @elf-pavlik started from was commitments on processes within the group; different role)
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:14 I think groups will have different internal dynamics different governance etc like how they come to agreement on what to do as a group
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:15 ok, i have different option
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:15 could be an assigned role would not need to be
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:15 group specifies 'collection' for their commitments they have some way to manage ACL
Preface: if we allow group agents (as I think we currently do), then they need to have agency. That is, be able to do things as a group, like make commitments with other groups. Like in a federation of groups.
Lynn Foster @fosterlynn 11:15 collection of commitments?
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:16 and only commitments referenced from that collection as 'contained' in it one will consider valid
Bob Haugen @bhaugen 11:16 I'll copy this chat and make it into an issue in the agent repo, ok?
elf Pavlik @elf-pavlik 11:16 in a way a list or feed of commitments so only commitments 'on that list' / 'in that feed' others agents consider as made by group _
Feel free to add.