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

[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 at latest.
  
• 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 
  
• http://doi.org/10.26869/TI.107.1
  
• We  should slot those issues and decisions in throughout the year
  
• Need to figure out the sustainable cadence
  
• 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