2020-01-17 Meeting notes (ISI)

Jim P

Welcome to the new Group Everyone. jim pasquale reminds us that the focus of the WG is personal information, while identity and information sharing are very much intertwining, other Kantara WG is focused on identity, and when appropriate or require consulting or working in those groups should be the proper procedure.

• A Consensus was reached for the project team person in charge is now "Leader"  PTL (Project Team Leaders position now open)
• Updates on proposed or possible projects discussed:
  • Consent Receipt v2 (??)
    
    • Current v1.1
    • Next Release vNext (accountability who and where timeframe)
    • Accountability (John)
    • Purpose of Use Taxonomies (Ken)
    • v.Next framework (GitHub & Mark Lizar)
    • Health Care Use Cases (Nancy)
    • Common best practices (Jim)
  • Information Sharing Sustainability (John)
    • Information Sharing Dashboard (Iain)
      
    • Accountability (John)
    • Intent Casting (Iain)
    • Information Sharing Agreements (John)
    • Health Care Use Cases (Nancy)
    • Common best practices (Jim)
  • Personal Data Record (Andrew Hughes)
    
    • Accountability (John)
    • Health Care Use Cases (Nancy)
    • Data in Motion and Data at Rest
    • Health Care Use Cases (Nancy)
    • Common best practices (Jim)
      
  • Purpose of Use Taxonomies (Ken where does it fit? is it all three projects)
  • Consent Evolution Roadmap/Project was requested as a project by Lisa Levasseur, an outline is ready and will be posted as soon as it is submitted
    • Prior to this request, Jim suggested taking the CMS effort and resources around common/best practices and making them part of each project, where the results would be part of the Roadmap. No clear decision was accomplished and the group agreed we need to see Lisa's framework submission before deciding
    • A conversation ensued as to whether the other projects contribute to this effort by the PTLS or does work by the PTL done her flow back to the other projects 
•  Colin mentioned two ways to move forward with Officers, Where:
  • should there only be one person's name submitted a simple quorate meeting can cast either approve or not,
  • otherwise, if there's more than one person nominated Staff will set up and issue an eBallot for voting. 
  • Nominations for officers after being asked by others Jim thrown in his hat to continue as Chair.
  • Rules of the road for WG
    • See Section 4.1.2: WG Roles All Policies 
  • Rules of the road for project teams
    • Project teams work independently with the PTLs reporting back to the group on the first Monthly Call
      • The PTL Shall:
        • Act as the chief administrator of the Project efforts;
        • Scheduling and chairing meetings of the Projects;
        • Supporting the Project in project administration; and
        • Administering the document publication processes
        • Be the main conduit between the project they represent and the other PTLs

• • • • The PTL Shall Not 
        •  Lead more than one Project at a time

• Minimum nominations required: Nominations are now open and will continue to be open for a Vote 2020-02-09
  • Chair
  • Vice-Chair (or Co-Chairs)
  • Secretary (if no nominations, Jim moves that Co-chairs alternate capturing notes)
    • A strong position for a regular capable Secretary was voiced and agreed by several members. A suggestion to find a computer science major 

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 group needs to capture what terms mean what to the group and in what context this WG uses them.  Examples: Interoperability/ Interfaces/ Integration, and Schemes/Taxonomies/Ontologies  

jim pasquale points out that we don't want to overextend, or Boil the Ocean, so the list above needs to be clarified with respect to available resources and too many projects.  The Projects will need and be required to have their own spaces on the system and additionally there own columns on the meetings and minutes Notes.  These can be drawn from using tasks for the projects (thanks for recommending John) for tracking progress easily and dynamically.   

The survey indicates not all contributors have agreed to move 1.1 to v.next. It can't be done officially until the 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 6th 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. Or a separate Team Leader manager call once a quarter

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

jim pasquale  Is in complete agreement with Nancy and believes it may only require a Full WG call once a month. as part of the "Demo" 1st monthly call