CTAB Call Wed. Aug. 29, 2018

  • Brett Bieber, University of Nebraska (chair)  
  • Mary Catherine Martinez, InnoSoft (vice chair) 
  • David Bantz, University of Alaska  
  • Tom Barton, University Chicago and Internet2  
  • Chris Hable, University of Michigan  
  • Ted Hanss, Yale  
  • Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madison  
  • Chris Whalen, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases  
  • Ann West, Internet2  
  • Kevin Morooney, Internet2  
  • Emily Eisbruch, Internet2    


  • Joanna Rojas, Duke 

New Action Items

  • [AI] Brett do another pass to look at the FIM4R with  a close look at  the recommendations.
  • [AI] Brett start a document with a proposed timeline of dates for moving from Phase 1 to Phase 2,   including proposed priorities for next steps of baseline expectations (R&S, SIRTFI, SHIBv3) and share with CTAB.  

Carry Over Action Items

  • [AI] Brett reach out to EricG about 1) sharing the UCOP privacy policy info as a recommendation and 2) if EricG would be willing to draft a blog about how they are tackling the Baseline Expectations privacy policy issue at UCOP.  (not done yet)
  • [AI] Brett email  the community about the final version of Community Consensus Process doc. 
  •       Consultation was here:


[AI] TomB update the BE Maintenance doc with decisions made during tabletop exercises

  • http://doi.org/10.26869/TI.105.1  
  • Community Dispute Resolution process has the most changes. CTAB members, please Look at doc history in the google doc to see the changes 
  • Update Aug 29: Erin met with Brett and TomB. 
    • Several Action Items to work through on results of Baseline Expectations Tabletop exercises. 
    • Erin has action items to be sure that collaboration platform is ready for  consensus discussions.
    • Some actions needed by InCommon staff. 
    • We  may have CTAB members help with the updates to the docs. 

For FIM4R response

FIM4R paper is:  https://zenodo.org/record/1307551  


  • Need discussion on how we move forward on the items that are assigned to CTAB
  • Tom: Recommendations are abstracted from the requirements matrix
  • CTAB should respond to the recommendations, not just to the requirements matrix
  • Kevin states that the response to the requirements matrix is probably  sufficient.
    • Once we get this kind of first pass from the working groups then we can create actionable meaning
  • David Walker is supporting CACTI in the FIM4R response
  • Best to contact Chris Phillips and David Walker on next steps
  • What is the group sensibility on these issues raised by FIM4R? Open minded thinking on making researchers’ life better
  • AI Brett will do another pass to look at the FIM4R with  a close look at  the recommendations.

Baseline Expectations Implementation Progress

  • A status report has been prepared by DavidW and ReneeS
  • Next step is to consider the recommendations  
  • Hope to touch every organization we can that is having issues meeting BE
  • Need a way to receive request from orgs needing more time to meet BE
  • Include a deadline date in the health check emails
  • SPs are still under 50% in meeting BE
  • Interesting to look at which elements are most difficult to meet in BE
    • getting contacts is a challenge
  • Some orgs are still saying “I have not heard about BE”
  • Brett and Ann will be talking with NickR and JohnK re making it easier for orgs with many Service Providers
  • Moving to Phase 2 of Baseline Expectations
    • Need to start thinking about Phase 2 planning, taking the input from the transition plan paper
    • As part of moving to Phase 2, there will be communications (webinars etc) to address any challenges that organizations are facing. This is where CTAB will likely be able to help
  • List of entities and where they stand:
  • See Roadmap for timeline  https://spaces.at.internet2.edu/display/BE/Baseline+Processes+Roadmap

  • What should be date/deadline for consequences for not complying with BE? Suggestions:
    • End of 2018
    • End of Jan 2019
    • For SPs… until June 2019?
  • As baseline expectations changes in the future,  will we give a year for adoption each time there is a BE change?
  • This first rollout of BE probably deserves more time than a small future change
  • Would the research community be OK with deadline for BE compliance at June 2019?
  • Gearing toward the academic year probably makes sense. This points to December instead of summer. 
  • Suggestion to set a deadline of early Dec. or end of Dec.  But take no action until sometime in January.  Note we don’t cut metadata over winter break
  • How do we engage more of the research community on this question of when to impose consequences for not meeting BE?
  • Many research organizations will likely be eager for next step of requiring R&S attribute release as part of BE
  • We need to “close up shop” on first phase of BE , before we can move to next part where we deal with R&S and SIRTFI and see much greater value

  • [AI} Brett start a document with a proposed timeline of dates for moving from Phase 1 to Phase 2,   including proposed priorities for next steps of BE (R&S, SIRTFI, SHIBv3) and share with CTAB.  

 Baseline Expectations TableTop Exercise TODOs  

Items coming out of the recent Baseline Expectations Tabletop Exercises included

  • developing a request form for submitting potential consensus topics and other Baseline Expectations related requests
  • fleshing out process for discuss lists and wiki pages for consensus discussions
  • modify the Baseline Expectations Process doc http://doi.org/10.26869/TI.105.1  to specify that the "concerned Party”  need not be the only party that can take the concern they raised on to Stage 3.

Recruiting New CTAB Members

Tech Ex 2018

Next CTAB call: Wed. Sept. 12, 2018


  • No labels