Attendees

Agenda

1. Introductions/Roll Call
2. All - Status Updates
   1. Wiki Clean up - Matt
   2. Project Proposal - Eric/Matt
   3. Strategy Group - Bob

Notes

eric - any updates from the strategy group meeting last week?

bob - at that meeting we went over a proposed set of materials that Bill Yock presented (forwarding that to the team), mostly around the organizational aspects of a project. part of that would be more technical to the sub-teams is a standard of record architecture appendix that would be the rules of the game that all projects would agree to. i assume that there maybe in kuali land something similar to that for exiting rice based projects?

eric - yeah there probably is, but not really in a consolidated place, here and there

bob - i guess a lot of the discussion was around the who is it that we need to talk to. focusing on the organizations that need to contribute (kuali and internet2) in particular and that we won't get very far if we don't get buy-in from them. it doesn't seem too clear on who would make those decisions; the internet2 to incommon etc. that's something of a fog at the moment. internet2 is looking to hire a director of "net plus", things beyond the internet. looking to sub teams for a how much effort over how much time type of information. with our group we've made some progress, need to say what work do we need to do to get someone(s) to invest, we need a clearer direction.

eric - so making that decision is kind of the charge to this team at the moment?

bob - yes, after our analysis we need to say that we are confident that a registry could be built and that there is interest from x parties in building it. bill yock has suggested that kuali rice be the care taker for registry, that certainly would not be deciding that we start from the KIM code base, but could.

eric - that sounds like something that...i've put an email out to hampton and bill along those lines, but am waiting to hear back from them on that. it makes sense to look at the reqs against kim and seeing what that effort would be. i think that's one potential path, it's just a matter of time of us getting that done but we need support from our leadership on doing that. it makes sense to do that from the kuali angle, but are there others.

steve - uc berkly and ucsf just concluded a 3-ish day get together to talk about IDM overhaul, out of that came a couple of priority projects that need some research work over the next few weeks. 1. core data model 2. identity match 3. transport layers. a bunch of overall stuff came up but for berkly and ucsf there's a charge to look at what's out there and make some statements about them. there is some overlap w/what we are doing. depending on how that goes, one could see that and this conversation coming together.

bob - seems like we would definitely lose if that and this project go different ways, but it sounds like the right people are involved.

steve - the other thing that was mentioned, the conflict is that identity match is looked at as an outside component...

bob - for PSU, they are intending to use an external service for this (i believe) to come up with matching scores, but presumable the what you do with that would be w/in the registry system. the basics of taking an entry with existing seems to me to be part of this.

steve - ...depending on how things shake out, maybe we look at that as a sub project w/in this?

jimmmy - what we're doing at PSU is, we've had an appliance for the past 6/7 years, it generates codes based on input and we run logic to create a score for matching. we're always looking at pluggable ways to do this, but always was to look at merging things

eric - the merging/matching is one of the high things for our kuali projects, a sub-project to get that moving forward seems like a good idea

bob - another poke to get us moving

eric - do we need to put anything together to help with the I2 meeting next week?

bob - there will be a batch of relevant CIO types that we could talk to at this meeting that may ask what's going on. beyond what we've already talked about, I don't know that there would be.

eric - other things?

bob - i guess getting all our ducks in a row to get things ready to make a public statement. opening the public space and using the wiki space we have.

eric - aren't we supposed to make our statement today?

bob - yeah, i guess we can't if everyone is not ready to approve it. there is a track session at the I2 meeting next week that will be mostly about this, but it'd be nice to have something out by then. have it go out on monday, i can get a draft out to this group.

eric - anything we can do to help w/that?

bob - if you have things that you want included in the statement just send them along to me.

eric - ok i'll let you know if there's anything additional that we'd have to include in there, but as you said, what we had 2 weeks ago for our report, we should be good.

bob - so in terms of kuali folks looking at what we have, what's the time frame on that?

eric - let me see about that, see what we can do to expedite that. we want to keep the momentum going, i want to get a chance to talk to bill as well on this since he's the chair of the board to make sure the vision/approach jives with what we're all trying to do. i'll continue to try and push this from the kuali side.

bob - turning our gaze to PSU, i know Renee has continued to look at what they can contribute, i think it'd be good if they can make some suggestions to that end, here's what we think about CPR can be contributed and what we'd have to do to make that happen, what timeline. that'd be good to have moving forward.

jimmy - yes that sounds like something we can do.

bob - i'd like to have at least a framework for all of this in a couple of weeks, a timeline to keep things moving forward.

eric - sounds like a good idea. are we planning on meeting next week with the work needed and the I2 meeting?

bob - it'd be a good idea to meet and report back. be on the alert to review the public statement later today!