Page Comparison

Jim P

Welcome to the new Group Everyone. jim pasquale reminds us that the focus of the WG is personal information

• Updates on proposed or possible projects discussed:
  • Consent Receipt v2 (??)
    
  • Information Sharing Dashboard (Iain)
    
  • Personal Data Record (??)
    
  • Intent Casting (Iain)
  • Information Sharing Agreements (John)
    
  • Purpose of Use Taxonomies (Ken)
  • Health Care Use Cases (Nancy)

• Nominations for officers
  • Rules of the road for WG 
  • Rules of the road for project teams

• Minimum nominations required:
  • Chair
  • Vice-Chair (or Co-Chairs)
  • Secretary (if no nominations, Jim moves that Co-chairs alternate capturing notes)

jim pasquale encourages participants to use the blog section of the WG to communicate and share. This enables newcomers to understand how the WG deals with various terms and definitions and concepts.

The survey indicates that all contributors have agreed to move 1.1 to v.next. It can't be done officially until time period expires.

jim pasquale recommends that we break out the various sections of work in progress in the minutes by project and/or by issue so that it can be dealt with on a more granular or specific basis, rather than one large section about edits.

iainh1 NA (Unlicensed) agrees to do a JLINC demo for the first February Meeting.

John Wunderlich suggests that WG meetings are for reporting back and coordinating between projects. But this begs the question about how the projects will self-organize to be both effective and transparent. i.e. do projects want project managers, leaders, managers, rapporteurs, contributors, editors, etc.

jim pasquale WG also needs to ensure that the WG is aware of status and can help address issues or roadblocks as they arise. Maybe separate project pages in Confluence as a start.

Nancy Lush (Unlicensed) points out that if the projects are doing most of the work, then frequency of Work Group Meetings may be reduced.