Versions Compared

Old Version 2

changes.mady.by.user Emily Eisbruch (internet2.edu)

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Emily Eisbruch (internet2.edu)

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Notes, CTAB Call of 14-Mar-2018


Notes and Action Items, CTAB Call of 14-March-2018

Attending:

  • Brett Bieber, University of Nebraska (chair)  

  • David Bantz, University of Alaska  

  • Tom Barton, University Chicago and Internet2  

  • Chris Hable, University of Michigan  

  • Ted Hanss, University of Michigan  

  • Jon Miner, University of Wisc - Madison 
  • Mary Catherine Martinez, InnoSoft  
  • Chris Whalen, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)  

  • Ann West, Internet2    

  • Emily Eisbruch, Internet2  


Regrets: Joanna Rojas, Duke


New Action Item

  • [AI] (Jon, David, Brett) will revise the text in the Community Consensus Process & “Rules of the Road” doc around lists and where the community consensus deliberations will occur 


Discussion

 Webinars

Community Notification of finalized FOPP/PA changes

  • Things are falling into place for official notification to community
 of  the FOPP/PA changes

Discuss & Finalize Community Consensus Process & “Rules of the Road” 

  • Thanks to Tom Barton for drafting a community consensus proces.   
  • Six stages are outlined
  • There is value in the IETF doc; it includes guidance on how a chair can help get to consensus, without expectation for everyone in room to agree; we should add it as reference material
 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
    • Concern - the focus of the IETF doc is that those who show up “in a room” or on a call. We should try to include the entire community, not just those who show up. Inclusiveness is important. 

  • Suggestion to mock up this community consensus process

  • Rules of Road part of the draft may be too rigid and challenging to enforce. 

  • Do we moderate or facilitate discussions?

  • There is the concern that a discussion can get dominated by a few strong views

  • Chair should have role to elicit opinions

  • The draft suggests a consensus-discuss email list. Discussion will get kicked off on participants list and moved to the consensus-discuss list.

  • How to populate the consensus-discuss list? Suggestion to copy in all of participants list.

  • Suggestion to spin up a new sympa list for each community consensus discussion

  • Issue : a new list will be disincentive to participation

  • It is unknown how often the community consensus process will get used

  • There will be  a community consultation process for each issue

  • The group discussion the issue on the consensus issue could reach out on regular basis to the broader InCommon participants list.

  • [AI] (Jon, David, Brett) will revise the text around lists and where the community consensus deliberations will occur 


 

Diagram (diagram used for the webinar, updates/corrections needed?)

Dispute Resolution Process, The group participated in a sample scenario. 

Issues to consider:

  • Do we need to set  up a requirement for how quickly an IDP must respond to CTAB in case of a dispute?
 
  • Someone needs to keep the notes
 for CTAB discussions of cases on the docket
  • Perhaps identify a lead from CTAB for each case



CTAB Meeting at 2018 Global Summit, Wednesday, 05/09, 12:00PM-1:00PM


  • Will have a zoom bridge



Next CTAB meeting, Wed. Mar 28, planned agenda item: Privacy Policy Discussion (David, Chris W)