Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Current »

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

🙋️ = 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)

Ain Aaviksoo

Note: meeting cut short to 30 minutes

Kanban board + Action points from last week

Update from iGrant

Mini-update on state of API compliance testing (2 min)

Benjamin Balder Bach

Offline consent

in preparation for next meeting

Notes from previous 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 (smile)

Consent delegation

skipped

  • CON-52 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  • 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

CON-15 - Getting issue details... STATUS

New Action Items

  •  

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)
  • 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.

Decision

  • No labels