InCommon TAC Meeting Minutes - October 7, 2015
Attending: Keith Hazelton, Tom Barton, Michael Gettes, Steve Carmody, Jim Basney, Scott Cantor, David Walker, Steve Olshansky
With: Nick Roy, Ann West, Dean Woodbeck, Tom Scavo, Paul Caskey, Nate Klingenstein, Steve Zoppi, IJ Kim
InCommon Roadmap
TAC went through a process of determining which of the proposed 2016 roadmap topics need clarity. This is the beginning of a process for developing 2016 priorities. Relevant documents include:
Comments on specific topics included:
- IdPv3 adoption -- much of this is is communications, training, outreach work (as opposed to technical work)
- MDQ project - is this software production level? The metadata aggregator is basic to eduGAIN. (AI) TAC needs an assessment of the MDQ project/software
- Making Federation Easier - This topic is still receiving contributions from a number of areas (packaging WG, developing communications plans, developing curricula, doing marketing survey)
- Executive Portal Production - This will save time (particularly for Angi and Sally), but we have limited time from developers. Federating the CM would also be a time saver.
- IdP of Last Resort - A main concern in any recommendation of an IdPoLR is ensuring longevity and sustainability.
- Consent Early Adoption - (AI) TAC needs to develop a consent strategy, asking for feedback from the LARPP group (Lifestyles of the Attribute Rich and Privacy Preserved)
TAC Membership
There was an extensive discussion about development of criteria that would outline TAC’s role and also TAC membership. TAC has evolved to both supporting InCommon Operations and also representing the community for input to InCommon services. Suggestions included:
- Setting up an Ops subcommittee or spinning off an Ops group
- membership in this should be based on expertise (and may not require TAC membership)
- Scoping what TAC does and is responsible for (vs. InCommon Steering and TIER Architects). TAC would discuss operations and the long-range planning and advice could be moved elsewhere
- TAC needs to move away from the model of selecting its own members
- TAC needs diversity (of institutional size and gender)
- TAC needs to be able to detail the expectations of membership to potential members
- TAC needs some sort of exit criteria, perhaps based on requirements (meeting attendance, etc)
(AI) Steve Carmody will develop a strawman document for TAC membership and requirements by the next meeting
There was consensus that two groups should exist - one that is strategy/architecture (which would be broad in scope and membership) and one that is focused on operations (with membership based on expertise).
- The Ops group would focus on federation, cert service and eduroam (tactical and technology) and note report to Steering, but to InCommon. Membership would be flexible and driven by needs. Focus is on the “how.”
- The strategy group would have some members participating based on expertise and some rotating and based on broader community representation. This group would focus on prioritization and longer range thinking, focusing on “what” and “when.” This could be a trust/identity group and span InCommon and TIER.