Leadership Council Meeting - 2010-10-19

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: Nov 10, 2010Version comment

Quorum Not Met - Notes Read into Minutes on November 10,2010

Kantara Leadership Council Teleconference

Date and Time

  • Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010
  • Time: 8:30 UTC (Time Chart)
  • Location: Orange-FT at 38 rue du General Leclerc 92794 Issy-les-Moulineaux

Attendees

  • Chair: J. Trent Adams
  • eGov WG / Vice Chair: Colin Wallis
  • Federation Interop: John Bradley
  • ULX WG: Paul Trevithick
  • ULX WG: Phillipe Clement
  • P3WG: Mark Lizar

Agenda

  1. 2011 Budget Evaluation
  2. Solidify Funded Activity Guidelines
  3. Cross-Group Synchronization Process
  4. Marketing / Outreach Opportunities
  5. Membership Recruiting
  6. Volunteer Fellowship Program
  7. Future Meetings (Virtual Support)
  8. Officer Elections
  9. AOB

Minutes

  1. NOTE: Quorum requirements not met. Meeting treated as a discussion with no motions to be made.
  2. Review Funded Activity Guidelines
    1. Consensus of the LC is not to fund Participants out of the organization budget.
    2. There have been situations in which a funded group attempted to find outside contractors and the LC has permitted a Participant to receive funding, as long as:
      1. The WG made good faith best efforts to find a non-Participant to do the work.
      2. The WG submitted to LC a comprehensive description of steps taken to find a non-Participant to do the work.
      3. The LC agreed that the WG evaluated all of its options to find a non-Participant to do the work.
      4. The funded Participant reuses himself/herself from all votes relating to the funded activity
    3. There have been no situations in which the LC has approved a request for organization funds to support travel by a Participant.
    4. There have been instances where Member organizations have directly contributed funding for Members and Staff to travel to specific events.
      1. These situations were handled on a case-by-case basis with the Member asking the Member Organization directly, then coordinating the contribution via the BoT Treasurer.
    5. It was suggested that a comprehensive "Budget and Funding" guideline similar to (and including) the "External Funding Guideline" be developed by the LC.
    6. ACTION ITEM: TBD to spearhead the creation of a "Budget and Funding" guideline. Volunteers?
  3. 2011 Budget Evaluation
    1. Budget allocation requests received prior to the meeting and discussed:
      1. ULX WG:
        1. Continue UX Mock-Up Development - $5,000.00
          1. This is a follow-on to 2010 funding for $10,000 to develop initial UX mock-ups.
          2. Spent only about $5,000 in 2010.
      2. P3WG:
        1. IAPP Workshop in March 2011 - $10,000.00
          1. Rationale as presented it primarily for membership recruiting
          2. Question: Why is this more expensive than the other two requested meetings?
          3. What is the major theme of the event and is there any other expected output than membership recruiting?
        2. Privacy summit during the NIST IDTrust workshop in March 2011 - $4,000.00
          1. Same month as IAPP request
          2. Question: What is the theme of the event and expected output?
        3. Privacy event during the Burton Europe event in Summer 2011 - $4,000.00
          1. Question: What will be the driving theme and expected output of the event?
        4. Perform audit of current KI work and programs for policy and privacy impacts. - $4,000.00
          1. Rationale: In support of Trust Frameworks
          2. Question: Why will this cost $4,000 (or anything at all)?
      3. Healthcare ID WG - $10,000.00
        1. Patient ID Portal: Phase 2
          1. Follow-on to 2010 funding for $20,000 received by OpenID Japan for Phase 1
          2. Note: Presumed contractor is e-Citizen
      4. Japan WG:
        1. Translate Kantara IAF into Japanese - $29,000.00
          1. Made up of:
            1. Service Assessment Criteria Document - $14,000
            2. Glossary - $2,000
            3. Other 6 documents - $13,000
          2. Question: Can we verify that the proposed cost for translation is reasonable?
          3. Question: Is there a way to explore how a Japanese version of the IAF may impact adoption?
        2. Translate General Press Releases (10 translations) - $2,000
          1. Note: Assuming that this is to translate generic press releases (i.e. not specifically KI releases) for the Japanese audiences.
        3. Event Support: Database Management (3 events) - $13,000.00
          1. Question: Why does this appear to be such a large expense?
        4. Event Support: Management and Reception (3 events) - $8,000.00
          1. Question: Why does this appear to be a low expense: $2,667 each?
      5. Federation Interoperability WG:
        1. Interoperability Event Support - $5,000
          1. Rationale: Periodic testing events are key to successfully proving interoperability. It makes it difficult to support the effort without allocating budget to run them.
          2. Question: Is this for a single event in 2011, or multiple events?
          3. Question: Would this be used to host an event, or help sponsor an event hosted by another organization?
        2. Testing, Prototype, and Tools Hosting / Support - $5,000
          1. Description: Setting up of a server that can be used as an ongoing test bed for various interoperability situations.
          2. Rationale: Unless a dedicated server is running in a stable environment over time, it is very difficult to reliably test interoperability. Constantly varying conditions make it difficult to home in on issues needing to be addressed.
          3. Question: Can this be hosted within the current Kantara IT environment?
            1. Answer: We need to check with KI staff, but it is likely we would need to stand up a separate server with the ability to provision various access according to testing roles.
            2. Answer: We might explore whether a member organization or other outside contributor would donate a dedicated solution.
    2. Budget allocation requests received after the meeting
      1. NOTE: The following requests were received after the meeting and were not discussed, though they are included here for completeness.
      2. Identity Assurance WG:
        1. SAC Document Update - $33,000
        2. Profile Document Creation and Update - $16,000
        3. RP Guidelines for Parties Relying on Recognized CSP Services - $44,000
        4. Support to ISO JTC1 SC27 Liaison (2 meetings in 2011) - $18,000
      3. InfoSharing WG:
        1. Develop Sharing Agreements Supporting Trust Frameworks - $15,000
      4. Healthcare Identity Assurance WG:
        1. Patient ID Portal: Phase 2 - $10,000
    3. ACTION ITEM: Trent to aggregate all budget allocation requests into a single document to simplify review.
    4. ACTION ITEM: Trent to discuss with the BoT the next steps in the process through the BoT Budget Preparation Committee
  4. Cross-Group Synchronization Process
    1. Discussion: There is a general need for Kantara WGs to remain in sync with each other. How can this be effectively accomplished?
      1. Suggestion: Each group holds a monthly briefing call, inviting all groups to participate.
        1. Comment: That may become overwhelming as it would mean 12 more calls per month (3 per week)
      2. Suggestion: Leverage the LC calls for each group to provide an update.
        1. Comment: This has been tried (and failed) in two different ways: each group gets a few minutes (hard to enforce quickness), and one group selected per call (hard to maintain).
      3. Suggestion: Hold the group update calls during the LC off-week rather than during the standard calls.
        1. Comment: This may be worth pursuing to see if there is interest.
      4. Suggestion: Each group report it's minutes via a common mechanism (e.g. email or RSS feed of posts) so that others can subscribe to this "summary" rather than to the complete list (and full discussion)
        1. Comment: This is getting closer to being manageable, but minutes may still be too much detail to be quickly parsed.
        2. Comment: Quality of minutes varies greatly across groups and unless improved may not be assumed to be helpful.
      5. Suggestion: Each group reports out it's motions and action items in a simple feed (e.g. email or RSS)
        1. Comment: This suggestion was the most well received.
        2. Comment: To work, each group will need to be diligent in recording them in a common format and avoid using group-specific terms.
    2. Consensus: To explore a mechanism to support simple reporting of motions, action items, and (potentially) summary comments.
    3. ACTION ITEM: Trent to explore with Staff how Confluence can be used to offer some sort of cross-group reporting that is useful and minimal impact on all involved.
  5. Marketing / Outreach Opportunities
    1. Discussion: While the organization itself (driven by the BoT and Programs) produces press releases of strategic interest, how can the work of groups be more effectively promoted?
      1. Suggestion: More involvement by the groups in the marketing conversations.
        1. Comment: To join the calls, send a note to Staff asking when the calls are being held (generally every two weeks on Tuesday). Everyone is welcome.
        2. Comment: The marketing effort would also benefit by Member Organizations contributing time by their internal marketing groups to provide guidance and assistance.
      2. Suggestion: Groups submitting bottom-up driven "marketable" events will help the overall marketing effort.
        1. Comment: For example, if a group submits comments to a paper or event (e.g. the P3WG submitting comments in response to a request by ITAC in support of the IGF), KI may want to send out a press release (or related feed).
        2. Comment: To be valuable, the groups need to always be thinking about whether a work item is likely to be valuable for promotion.
        3. Comment: It might make sense for the group leadership to err on the side of "over-promotion" and suggest more to the marketing committee and let them triage the inbound requests for promotion.
        4. Comment: The earlier discussion about "cross-group synchronization" may have a beneficial side-effect of being a feed of information to the marketing committee.
        5. Comment: Everyone should be already blogging and tweeting work in the groups... but that is something each group/leadership/person will have to do on their own and is hard to effectively coordinate.
      3. Suggestion: Whenever a Participant considers attending a conference, they should always think "is there something I can present from my WG?" (this would go doubly for WG leadership)
        1. Comment: This might not always be possible, but is worth keeping in mind.
        2. Comment: Great idea, but Participants don't always have the funds to justify the travel.
        3. Suggestion: The LC should explore the possibility of setting up a "Sponsored Travel Fellowship" to help defray the cost when a Participant is speaking on behalf of their WG.
    2. Consensus: Groups need to take more responsibility for communicating marketable events to the marketing committee.
    3. ACTION ITEM: Trent to shepherd the exploration of a "Sponsored Travel Fellowship Program" (see subsequent topic item and associated action item below).
  6. Membership Recruiting
    1. Discussion: As there is no coordinated membership recruiting campaign for the organization, how can the LC help attract new members?
      1. Comment: Nothing attracts new members like producing real work, and the organization is starting to build traction.
      2. Comment: While outside the direct control of the LC, recruiting would benefit by improved "high level" communication on the website.
      3. Comment: The best way for the LC to support recruiting efforts is by supporting outreach marketing opportunities (as discussed earlier)
  7. Fellowship Programs:
    1. Volunteer Fellowship
      1. The program continues to see support in the LC, and the next draft needs to be circulated
      2. ACTION ITEM: Trent to circulate an updated draft describing he program to the LC list.
    2. Sponsored Travel Fellowship
      1. Suggestion: To explore setting up a new fellowship program to support Participants traveling to events at which they are representing Kantara (in whole or on behalf of a group)
      2. Discussion: How can the LC help Participants off-set travel expenses to applicable events?
        1. Comment: There needs to be a clear line drawn between this sponsorship and activities directly associated with the organization.
        2. Comment: It's possible that everyone will apply for funding to all events.
        3. Suggestion: In order to limit the number of applications, perhaps each WG (and possibly not applicable to DGs) has an allowed number of events or budget limit, for which it can apply.
          1. Question: Is that an artificial limit? What if one group is legitimately more visible than others, shouldn't it get an associated increase in the allocation?
        4. Suggestion: Rather than a set dollar value associated with each trip (e.g. $500), perhaps it makes sense to limit the award to a percentage (e.g. 80%) of travel and event registration fees.
          1. Comment: This would encourage everyone from having some "skin in the game" but not covering all their expenses.
          2. Comment: It might be more equitable for foreign travel that tends to be more expensive than traveling domestically (or regionally).
      3. Question: How would the fellowship be awarded?
        1. Suggestion: The LC could have a fund in 2011 that they could spend down in reply to requests by WG Members
          1. Question: Should it be limited to Members, or be available to Participants, too?
            1. Comment: This could be limited to Members and used as a rationale as a benefit to becoming a Member.
            2. Comment: Limiting it to Members would also help to minimize the number of applicants to a reasonable number.
        2. Question: What criteria would the LC use to differentiate between a reasonable event to fund, and one that's not an effective spend?
          1. Suggestion: It would help to limit the applicability to giving a formal talk (i.e. not just attending).
          2. Suggestion: Perhaps the estimated size of the audience (e.g. based on previous years?) could be a limitation (e.g. > 150 attendees in the talk / session).
      4. Question: How would this be funded?
        1. Answer: The LC can bring it up to the BoT for further exploration. It can easily be seen as an effective marketing/outreach program and worth an allocation.
      5. ACTION ITEM: Trent to ask the BoT to allocate on the order of $10,000 to be spent by the LC in 2011 on Member (i.e. not Participant) travel to help defray the costs incurred (up to a percentage) of giving talks at events with attendance above a minimum threshold (e.g. > 150 attendees).
  8. Future Meetings (Virtual Support)
    1. Discussion: Would it help for future Kantara meetings to offer support for virtual attendees?
    2. Comment: Isn't that what groups do now anyway with teleconferences and tools like Etherpad?
      1. Answer: Yes, to varying degrees to varying success in various groups: there's no one-size-fits-all model.
    3. Comment: Each group meeting in Paris offered the teleconference line for remote participants, and it was only minimally used.
    4. Comment: Remote participants can be distractions (when fiddling with the technology to support them).
    5. Comment: Remote participants can't participate to the same degree as physical participants
    6. Comment: Remote participation requires effective chairing in the physical room to be effective.
    7. Comment: Remote participation with cameras in the physical room (to cue off of visual clues) are key (and the reverse is true: seeing the remote participants helps)
    8. Comment: It is likely to work for some groups and not others, and (assuming no cost) it is worth exploring if someone is interested.
      1. Consensus: Experience in the room is that having to cater to too many non-physical attendees can have an adverse effect on the efficiency and effectiveness of a meeting, but that it is worth trying on a limited scale with a particularly active group.
    9. ACTION ITEM: TBD to lead an effort to set up a reasonable test of a virtualized meeting for an active group. Volunteers?
  9. Officer Elections
    1. Quorum was not met, delaying the officer election to the next teleconference.
  10. Meeting adjourned at 13:00 UTC

Next Teleconference

  • Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2010
  • Time: 3pm PDT | 6pm EDT | 22:00 UTC (Time Chart)
  • Teleconference Options:
    • Skype: +9900827043671716
    • US Dial-In: +1-201-793-9022 | Room Code: 3671716

NOTES: