IdentityAndConsentManagement meeting notes 2024-01-31 #118
Conversation
|
|
||
| ## New participant assignment to chair the working group. | ||
|
|
||
| - It is announced that Axel Nennker (DT) will take over the chair from the next working group meeting. He replaces Jesús Peña (Telefónica). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no "chair" role defined in Camara. This is the moderator role.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is clarified in line 99, as Axel did in the meeting itself. But I can add further clarifications to it that are not enough. This is just a naming issue in my opinion (my bad), nothing changes the expectations of the role responsibilities.
| - Shilpa indicates that she has no other opinion. Probably pros and cons of each option. Elizabeth would vote for a self-contained with a list of changes (change history), otherwise it wouldn't be possible to follow. Axel points out that if you're a developer reading this, you won't notice what's changed from the existing standard. Elizabeth points out that with a delta it's going to be impossible, she has 20 years experience in development.... Axel has been working in standards for 10 years, and mistakes happen, he thinks that if you rewrite something, you might invalidate the other standard. | ||
| - Toyeeb (GSMA) indicates that a self-contained document will be more appreciated by dev community, based on current experience with developers so far in GSMA. | ||
| - Axel points out that it's fine as long as it's clear what changes are included and why. He warns that we need to be really careful. Fabio points out that maybe we can point out the text that changes from the standard, he agrees with Axel in this case | ||
| - **After asking to the WG participants considering the different opinions, the way forward agreed is: go with self-contained + compromise to properly note any change in relation to the reused standard.** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shilpa's suggestion to collect organization specific viewpoint was not taken into consideration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I strongly disagree, sorry. To say that you were ignored, I don't think that's true, and I can't put that in the minutes.
As stated in #113 (comment), there have been days of feedback on the profile format since the PR was created before this meeting call, there have been different opinions, and the meeting last week was precisely to agree on a way forward and unblock this hot topic
During the call, as noted in the meeting minutes, other participants such as Ericsson, GSMA and Telefónica also gave their opinions. And in this call with other participants from other connected companies, it was also requested whether we all agree to move forward with a self-contained approach. And there was an explicit agreement in that call to do so. Not all participants did provide an anwser, of course, but lazy agreements apply to CAMARA.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How do we assume a lazy consensus if we don't give some time to at least the people who are active in the PR review or better still the participants of the WG to give their feedback/opinion? This was done on the spot during the meeting with just the participants who attended the meeting that day and further limiting it to the few who spoke. It would be very helpful if we collect the feedbacks before we at least make major decisions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shilpa-padgaonkar PR was created 25/01 and WG meeting was 31/01. That is 4-5 working days in between. The PR was quite active and many people gave feedback to the PR and specifically this topic was identified as one of the two main discussion tracks and therefore it was suggested to be discussed in the meeting call. Especially because it had a big impact on the PR because the PR content would be totally different depending on the format choice (delta or self-contained). So we had to agree on the profile format in order to proceed with the PR content and the rest of the comments and discussions.
I don't like what you are suggesting with your comments and it is clear that we have different opinions. I would have liked to hear your comment above in the meeting itself and not now. But as I said before, if the WG wants to revisit the format decision, then let's do it. But this is not a unilateral decision by Telefonica or anything like that, I want to make that very clear. So please, let's ask the rest of the participants to revisit the decision and let's set the deadline that you think meets your expectations and the expectations of the WG.
|
@shilpa-padgaonkar and rest of the reviewers, any chance to merge this PR to add the meeting notes to the repository before this week's call? |
|
@shilpa-padgaonkar @AxelNennker I think we should merge the meeting notes just for the record and information for the rest of the attendees. It makes no sense to keep this PR open indefinitely (especially when we have a new WG meeting call today). If there is something you are not comfortable with, we can just add the DISCLAIMER you want to give DT's reasoning and point of view. Just to let other participants know what you disagree with and why. WDYT? |
|
@jpengar : Fine for me to merge with the disclaimer that the agreement wasn't a consensus from our point of view |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jpengar I agree to merge and go forward. The discussions went anyway already forward with e.g. #122 and #113 (comment)
|
@AxelNennker : Could you kindly approve so that Jesus can proceed with merge? |
What type of PR is this?
What this PR does / why we need it:
MoM of the call held in 2024-01-31
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
None.
CC @MarkCornall @trehman-gsma @Elisabeth-Ericsson @FrimanJan