About this document: Agenda and notes are kept in the same document, a separate copy of the document is maintained for each meeting. Please add agenda points before the meeting. Action items created in previous meeting and all other unresolved action items are kept in the document. Please tick off any completed items.
Meeting link: https://meet.google.com/rsf-cqaq-eyq ordinary starting time at 07:45 UTC / 09:45 CET / 13:15 IST
Attendees
Ain Aaviksoo (meeting facilitator) 🙋️
Benjamin Balder Bach (note keeper) 🙋️
Lal Chandran 🙋️
Philippe Page 🙋️
🙋️ = present in meeting
Meeting Notes
This meeting was the first of the year, so we exercised our memories to get back to where we left off. There are notes below from agenda items that we discussed ad-hoc.
Agenda | Presenter | Discussion |
|---|---|---|
General update (5 min) | Note: meeting cut short to 30 minutes | |
Kanban board + Action points from last week | ||
Update from iGrant | ||
New members for working group | Coordination with Community Growth Team has yielded the following process:
So we can come up with a short-list for the Consent BB WG and then a GovStack community growth member can reach out officially. Discussion: We need clearly defined future goals for the WG before inviting new members. Ain will lift this for the TC | |
Discussion on Identity Management situation, some recent criticism, and the general GovStack approach (15 min) | Lal mentioned that DDX Solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Managed_Access - the research is documented. Ain would like to have a clear discussion about about the large-scale intiatives around Identity Management and how it influences consent and how we integrate with them. Lal mentions that the approach of this analysis was systematic and is worth publishing as a finding. Phillippe mentioned that we/GovStack should take advantage | |
Offline consent | in preparation for next meeting | Notes from previous meeting:
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 |
Consent delegation | skipped |
|
Review necessary Gherkin scenarios to implement | Benjamin Balder Bach Skipped | CON-15 - Getting issue details... STATUS |
New Action Items
- Ain Aaviksoo will mention the newly done process for inviting new WG members in TC, because we need to re-iterate on the goals of the WG in order to invite new members
- Ain Aaviksoo call for a meeting with focus on Lal Chandran 's research on how the Consent BB spec supports various existing standards and solutions on Identity Management.
Action Items from previous meetings
- Ain Aaviksoo consider if the decision to have “external ID” and “external ID type” referencing Individuals is relevant for the Key Desicion Log (if it’s not already there)