Kanban board + Action points from last week

skipped

• Consent BB Spec 2.0 scoping (to be cont’d)

General update (5 min)

skipped

Update from iGrant

Sandbox integration WP3 is ongoing, and the Sandbox integration is ready.

Test compliance is being worked on now, too.

https://github.com/decentralised-dataexchange/bb-consent-docs/wiki/WPs-and-Deliverables

UI/UX and specification

Ain brought up the DDX Consent BB’s specification, in order to talk about a review of Govstack UX specification vs. DDX UX.

Action items

We have been discussion consent definition and alignment with the DDX solution in terms of:

• Current specification’s consent definition

• Data Agreement

• Alignment with UX Guidelines

• What do we need to add in the spec (schemas/endpoints) if the whole UI flow of DDX should be included?

Offline consent

postponed to next meeting

in preparation for next meeting

Notes from this meeting:

• on-demand consent is perhaps less of a “practical” need for Government use-cases, since government usecases often have a legal basis (legitimate interest/obligation etc)

• Ain notes that it’s the role of the application (not the Consent BB) to produce “on-demand” consent, so the Consent BB supports this scenario, however it does not directly facilitate it.

• We can think of our specification text with the reader in mind. In this case, we can support readers looking to “plug in” the Consent BB in a data transaction in order to guide their understanding towards best-practice consent design and app architecture.

To summarize this, we believe that it’s possible to include “on-demand” consent by describing how an application can use the Consent BB for this scenario. This can be a section in the specification. [immediately after the meeting, this has been captured as a candidate for the FAQ section]

We’ll continue this discussion in the next meeting to cover other aspects of offline consent that are relevant to our immediate roadmap.

Note from original meeting: We had to postpone this. Note that we’re trying to figure out a terminology here. “On-demand” consent was used to emphasize the risks of this kind of thinking, but “offline consent” will help us capture the broader nature. Everyone is encouraged to think about terminology

UI/UX feature in DDX Spec

Should we add this to Consent BB spec too?

Consent delegation

skipped

• Jira Legacy
  server System JIRA serverId f5c6bdaf-d23e-347d-a1e8-579e20a81dda key CON-52

• Where is the relationship between individuals stored?

  • The application is aware of it?

  • Another BB is aware of it?

  • Auditing should be able to verify it

Review necessary Gherkin scenarios to implement

Benjamin Balder Bach Skipped

Spec 2.0: Unfolding new roadmap items

Skipped

New issues

sasi

parked for future meeting

• What do we expect other BBs that call Consent-BB to store?

• When do we like to use Consent-BB and when do we not expect this? (This should also be know to the auditor.)

Discussion: How shall we address such matters, which do not fit into specification format?