February 15, 2024 Technical Committee Meeting Note
- Esther Ogunjimi
- Aare Laponin
- Farina Owusu
Attendees
@Steve Conrad @Farina Owusu @Aare Laponin @Ain Aaviksoo @PSRAMKUMAR @Trev Harmon @Wes Brown @David Higgins @Nico Lueck @Farai Mutero
Agenda | Presenter | Duration | Discussion |
|---|---|---|---|
Enterprise Architecture | @Aare Laponin | 15 minutes |
 There is a huge complexity around digital transformation; this means without a comprehensive view of the digital organisation, we do not have the capability to manage it properly. There are different operating systems, different operational risks that are involved which architecture helps to manage.
Steve - How do we integrate this document into GS resources and guidance that we make available?
Ramkumar - It is important to map the countries readiness factors in targeted demographic because the solution that will be proposed will depend on those.
Ain - There is value in making reference to the document above when describing our approach to Consent BB for instance. Also, ID-BB would benefit from it.
In the PAERA draft, chapters 1-4 are updated based on initial feedback. Current version of document is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XWe2r1BZuOham6dmwB7wGIj3JAMOpYx6LII7Gw1ZG1I/edit?usp=sharing Would be good to get the feedback. Chapter 5 is yet under construction. Will be finalised by the end of February 2024. |
Presentation of GovStack Expert Concept | @Farina Owusu | 10 min | The GovStack expert concept draft was developed to map out the process of how service providers can become a GS partners and contributors. This means by becoming a GS expert, freelancers and companies that can offer services around GS implementation can present themselves on GS website, and they can easily be found by governments looking to digitise their services with GS.
Wes - It is concerning to want to position people as an experts based on four days of being involved and being an expert implementer having done no prior GS implementations. We might be setting ourselves up for repetitional damage to GS because it will reflect poorly on us if a GS expert goes in do a poor job or what is not right. We should be careful putting the GS expert label on individuals and companies at this level of vetting because there is not much being done to actually validates that they are actual experts. We should put a significant amount of effort into doing real validation of the individuals and companies that we are going to be called GS experts.
Ramkumar - There is a large segment of open source communities and academic presence in a low cost experimentation that GS could take advantage of and ensure we are not ignoring these part of community involvement as we may find experts among them - recommending we involve the university faculties and the open source communities. Passing a certificate exam is a good first step but, it does not qualify people as GS experts until they have tried e.g., working with GS sandbox or implemented one or two prototype use cases and proven they can actually understand GS architecture and when given a new use case, they can do something with it practically; until they are able to do these and more, branding them as GS experts maybe risky.
Aare - Creating a pool of GS experts who are actual experts will be a tremendous help for governments.
Steve - We need some vetting if people are going to become core contributors. Could this become a two phase process where if someone wants to become an expert, they need go through a vetting process and then invite them to participate in one or more BBs WGs and after a period of time they can move towards a certification as an expert. We could also require any one that want to become an expert to have a sponsor; someone from the TC or architecture team to sponsor and validate that this person understands GS.
Nico - In this context, a contributing experts been referred to are people that are already contributing as part of the community and they do not need to be invited. As GS is trying to shape the market, we are good on the government side and not on the supplier side. We need to give governments the option of who else they can approach beside the GS initiative to get any advisory or services. We need to start this effort as it is needed to give incentive to the private sector and contributor sides.
Trev - The process and presentation of what a GS expert is has to be as simple as possible because there are chances for it to be misrepresented and misunderstood by governments if the requirements are vague. We also need to be fully prepared and staffed up those that will run the process and have policies and clear communication in place. There is need to have a solid plan in place before launching this process.
David - We need to be more specific on how any expert has gained a knowledge; that can be captured in the expert status with the breakdown of how it was done. We need to be forward looking and include more expert levels to the process that may not be achievable at the moment but, it gives space towards the future. |
GovStack Deep Dive Readout | @PSRAMKUMAR | 10 minutes |
|
Authentication Mechanism (contd) | @PSRAMKUMAR | 15 minutes |
|