OSIdM4HE-Strategy&Org. call, 5pm - 6pm (ET) Friday, 8/12/2011

(Agenda layout shamelessly stolen in toto from Rob Carter's Provisioning Team Agenda plus a few formatting tricks from Matt Sargent of the Registries Team)

Participants

1. Convene

2. Agenda Bash

3. Goals for our first month

• a. Vision: How would the Open Source IAM world evolve if everything happened the way we thought it should?
  • RL: Difference of views in registries team between Kuali perspective and I2 perspective on, e.g., importance of LoA
  • BY: Goal: Stock solutions that ppl can easily extend; Eric optimistic;  concerns: scope creep;
  • RL: need someone from Access Mgmt to join this group
  • BY: Advocate further Changing/morphing community dev. model to take better advantage of a broader mode of development; Golden rule governance, but RICE is a shared service model shaped by roadmap committee; Interest in broadening this model
  • RL: Having RICE find new way to interact with Internet2, mutual influencing; likely participation will be aimed at HE in general.
    BennO: Jasig/Sakai discussions, looking across portfolio of projects, theme is emerging need to adopt additional new ways of structuring, esp. whatever joint venture might come out of these efforts.
  • HS: We're all trying to accomplish: Affordable, Pluggable IAM stack for IAM. Can we articulate a common goal.

• b. How do we achieve the vision?  What do we have to do to assure alignment of real work with the vision?
  • BY: Fundamental challenge to achieving these goals; you did address gaps, the overlap is more problematic (EricW: Grouper & Kim both have access management capabilities, because of the overlap, it's unlikely that one will go away
  • HS: Having two solutions can be a good thing if they develop toward convergence.
  • KH: Would having an inter-institutional collaboration use case help us ID the ways of handling overlap and co-exist; // w Oracle
  • RL: Drastic rip and replace would not be a good thing
  • HS: Where we might come together to write new functionality, we'd need to come up with a support model.
  • BY: You also need to look at adoption of current projects, if one is not as widespread, it might need to be sidelined from further development.
  • BO: market survey, then where there's a gap, what do we do? The concept of duplications of effort is not a big concern for him.
  • RL: OS projects fall down on this. We don't know our market. Especially the smaller ones.
  • RL, BO: Other groups are parts of the elephant. S&O has responsibility to take on the big lines and boxes
  • RL: I2's less formal way of making investment decisions, and not a lot of resources to invest. New mgmt, perhaps new opportunities will emerge.
• c. Scope: What's on our list for work?  What's not?
• c. Prioritization -- Are there crucial issues or choice points that need input "now"?  IAM Market Survey: Who's using What to fill Which chunks of IAM functionality
• d. Develop recommendations on strategy and tactics for discussion by OSIdM4HE members at the September 16th all-hands meeting.

4. Organization

• a. Do we need a separate mailing list?  Sure, why not? See AI
• b. Are we the right people?  Do we need more?  Someone from the Access Management Team
• c. Shall we do weekly concalls, at least for a month?  Yes
• d. Is this time of day acceptable? Yes

5. AIs for the next call

• RL'Bob' Documenting the gaps that have no team (yet). AuthN is one example.
• HamptonS Draft charter for S&O Team with thoughts on how we make progress toward our goals
• Keith Draft someone from the Access Management Team to join S&O so we have all teams represented on our calls
• Keith Create wiki page for our IAM Market Survey planning
• Keith Ask SteveO to create OSIdM4HE-strat@internet2.edu mailing list and subscribe all members