Page Comparison

Date

Jun 02, 2016

Attendees

• Harri Honoko

• John WunderlichColin Wallis

• Former user (Deleted)

• Eve Maler

• John Murphy 

• Mark Lizar

   

  (Unlicensed)

• Former user (Deleted)

  Discussion 

  • Discuss Iains Iain's email on the list. 
  • that there There should not be a machine readable consent receipt to begin with, but machine readable should come in at a second stage
  • John , said the original idea was  just just the data dictionary 
  • Eve , suggested option C - we have it lets from her email thread:  we just call the notice a conformance level and a JSON conformance level 
  • Harri - Say that we need to do the whole thing with JSON or it generates fragmentation - without machine readable it does not generate digital infrastructure.. 
  • IDEA: put it all in the the spec as "modes"
  • Colin Wallis - David Turner is waiting in the wings suggesting that we split the technical and the field discussions into two tracks

  Mary is Asking for a motion on way to move forward

  • Motion Made - By Eve
  • The spec should reflect conformance modes, including a level of technical conformance with JSON mark-up for interoperability, and also a data dictionary-only mode for conformance would include the wording or clauses alone.
  • Eve made the motions
  • John made ameddmendantsamendments

  • Mark Seconded.

  • there were no objectionsMark Seconded. 
    
    
• Discuss Meeting On Thursday instead of
Monday 
• Monday
  
  • Thursday call is agreed 7 am PT - 10 EST - 3pm GMT - 5pm EET
• Discuss technical spec writer for the specification
. 
• - Colin's email regarding spec writer will require a bit more money from the board and he will work toward this.
  
  • Mark to take examples of v0.7.9 and put into v0.7.8 - spec, as well as start to turn into google doc then share with WG
for 
• • for review.

  Action Items