Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

CTAB  Call of Wed. Jan. 16, 2019

 

Attending

  •  Mary Catherine Martinez, InnoSoft (chair) 
  • Brett Bieber, University of Nebraska 
  • David Bantz, University of Alaska 
  • Tom Barton, University Chicago and Internet2 
  • Chris Whalen, Research Data and Communication Technologies  
  • John Hover, Brookhaven National Lab -  guest   
  • Rachana Ananthakrishnan, Globus, University of Chicago - guest   
  • Adam Lewenberg, Stanford - guest

  • Albert Wu, Internet2    
  • Ann West, Internet2  
  • Kevin Morooney, Internet2
  • Emily Eisbruch, Internet2     

Regrets

  • Ted Hanss, Yale 
  • Chris Hable, University of Michigan
  • Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madison 


Action Items

[AI] (Albert) will set up the Slack channel (Done)

[AI] (Albert and MC and TomB and Adam and Rachana) will work on the CTAB roadmap chronology. Albert will set up a call.

Discussion

  CTAB Communications  

    • Decision to set up a CTAB Slack Channel 
    • AI Albert will set up the Slack channel

 CTAB Membership Update 

  • MC and TomB did outreach to each of the the CTAB candidates  
  • Hope to move all four names from the proposed slate to the InCommon Steering for approval,

  • Vice Chair election - need to have a vice chair by Steering approval on 2/4
    • Elect vice chair by Jan 23, 2019  
    • If interested in being Vice Chair, please email MC or CTAB
    • AI [MC]   email the CTAB list and ask anyone interested in being Vice Chair to email her. (Done)
    • CTAB Charter http://doi.org/10.26869/TI.94.1
    • Last year, the vice chair (MC) was elected on a CTAB call
    • Kevin notes that InCommon Steering is also welcoming new members this year.
      • Steering will be voting on new chair and vice chair 
      • Steering changes  should be in place by early February

 2019 CTAB Roadmap  

  • CTAB Planning call Jan 11, 2019 participants: David, Jon Miner, ChrisW, and Albert
  • Issues:
    • Logistics for CTAB recruitment, etc.
    • What should be next steps around Baseline Expectations?
    • Community Dispute Resolution Process, should we continue to flesh out details?
    • What is CTAB’s role?
    • Creating Code of conduct ; practices, interoperability support, federation support, etc? (badging) 
  • How to prioritize the work?
  • What should be the chronology? Roadmap?
  • There is a set of community consensus process items 
  • Albert: since we have just finished the success of  most of the community meeting baseline expectations
  • Should we keep the momentum going while the community is paying attention?
  • Approach this in a time-boxed fashion
  • Perhaps make baseline validation an annual event
  • And publish/refine the baseline expectations each year. 
  • Then figure out what’s doable in a year
  • Agreed that a regular cadence is good
  • Some BE issues might fall more on IDPs and some might fall more on SPs
  • A lot of details to work through
  • Should we spin off in sub groups to work on some of the issues?
  • Brett: walk through these issues as a group for now
  • Last year we did some table top exercises to test the community dispute resolution process
  • Idea was that in some cases, there could be a point person 
  • Brett: first challenge could be addressing the few orgs that do not meet baseline
  • Then address a few of the next issues as a group.
  • Later, perhaps assign a subgroup or point person
  • It’s a new process of how to handle Baseline Expectations
  • In 2018 CTAB talked about creating subgroups, seems good to have the whole of CTAB work on issues at first
  • TomB: to get the roadmap chronology fleshed out, it would be good if the committee could come up with a strawman. 
  • [AI] (Albert and MC and TomB and Adam and Rachana) will work on the CTAB roadmap chronology. Albert will set up a call.
  • Any single consensus topic could take a month or two.
  • CTAB could prioritize which to tackle and which order. 


Baseline Expectations 

  • Currently restricted access for the list of entities not meeting Baseline Expectations
  • This list is being automatically updated daily
  • Two purposes for this soon to be public list:
  • Helps protect your org if you want to know which federation players are not meeting BE
  • Also this list is partly an ask for help to get last few percent of orgs across the finish line of meeting BE
  • In some cases, our substantial outreach may not have reached these orgs
  • Q: What about an org that thinks they are meeting BE but they are not?
  • A: We have sent many emails (health check emails) to their contacts
  • this list comes from the biweekly health checklist
  • There are about 59 organizations and 200 entities on this list
  • This is the last 5%
  • Now 95% of orgs meet Baseline Expectations
  • Started in 2018 with only 16% of orgs meeting BE
  • Some of the orgs not meeting BE may not have any contacts in their metadata
  • In one case, the main contacts have been on leave, we finally reached out to a different contact
  • Q: who does the outreach to the organizations that don’t meet BE? InCommon staff or CTAB members?
  • A: A combination…. Two excellent contractors (David Walker and Renee Shuey) did much outreach
  • Comment: a lot of outreach has been done. It’s OK to make this list public
  • Albert will be happy to provide more background on the efforts so far around  

  • What do we do with private docket next?
  • How does CTAB move through the docket list?
  • Do we want to revisit Health Check email considering we have 71 orgs left, especially if we advance all orgs missing BE into the dockets?
    • Do we advance all orgs missing BE into the dockets (31 vs 71) 

 

Next CTAB calls: Wed Jan. 23, 2019 and Wed.  Jan. 30

  • Note that currently CTAB calls are schedule to return to biweekly in February
  • with no CTAB call on Wed. Feb. 6


 

 

  • No labels