February 22, 2024 Technical Committee Meeting Notes

Updates on GitBook and syncing

@Wes Brown

10 minutes

The link from Gitbook back to GitHub is not working and need to be reconfigured. Wes will go through each one of the spaces on GitBook and reconfigure the connection back to the correct branch and repo in GitHub using GitBook as the source.

GitBook no longer support inheriting the style and the security settings from a parent collection. Going forward, if you create a new subcollection of the main collection or anywhere else, it's not going to inherit the settings above it, it need to be set manually.

Status Updates

• Q1 & Q2 priorities

• List of experts for BB review

All

20 minutes

The aim for the BBs specs review by external experts is to bring in people that have not been involved in GS and get their perspectives on what to improve on the specs, and they might also get involve in GS.

Martin - What is expected of the experts and what can be promised to these experts that will come in to review the specs?

Wes - The goal is to engage with people and get their feedback through all the channels we have and the ones they are comfortable with. The Triage Leads will be helping the experts that will be coming to review the specs.

Vijay - For Q1, the payment WG will continue with the validation work with the MiFos team, and also work to resolve the discrepancies on the spec in GitBook. The focus for Q2 will be G2B and G2G types of payments and multi currency transactions and tax reconciliations for government payments

Brief overview of DCI work in Social Protection and their process

@Steve Conrad

15 minutes

https://standards.spdci.org/standards/dci/readme ttps://spdci.org/

This is a parallel initiative and we want to ensure that GovStack work on the specs are aligned with the work DCI is doing.

Call for BB candidates to submit compliance self-assessment https://testing.govstack.global/en/requirements

@Nico Lueck

5 minutes

https://testing.govstack.global/ is live

How do we better find software solutions or provider owners and how do we motivate them to submit their self assessment? Having the first few entries will make it easier to promote the testing platform.

New Iteration of GovStack Experts

@Nico Lueck

10 minutes

- review and comment

The above document has been revised based on the feedback from when it was first presented. Part of the feedback was the need to be more clear on the vetting process - why someone got listed as an experts on the website. An expert can be an individual or a company and the prerequisite is that the person or company agrees to the GS principles

There need to be the minimum engagement timeframe captured in the doc for both the involvement and the contributions that an expert has made directly as well as the timeframe that they’ve been involved. Because we do want to be careful that we don't have people who made some contributions, they've been involved for a while, but they don't really know what GS is doing or why GS is doing what we're doing.