[Fim4l] Notes: FIM4L call, 4 April 2019

[Vasso Kalaitzi]

Hi Heather and thanks for this!

Just a note on the LIBER working groups (see below part in red): at the moment most of the members participating (although not strictly) are LIBER library members. So information on the stakeholder groups/interested parties so far -and potential ones- is needed, in order to come up with the best structure of the FIM4L initiative.

Best,
V.


________________________________
From: FIM4L [fim4l-bounces at lists.daasi.de] on behalf of Heather Flanagan [hlf at sphericalcowconsulting.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 4:01 PM
To: Fim4l at lists.daasi.de
Subject: [Fim4l] Notes: FIM4L call, 4 April 2019

(Action items in bold)

Attending:
Jos Westerbeke, Peter van Boheemen, Sander Engelberts, Jiri Pavlik, Peter Gietz, Barbara Monticini, Martini Torma, Raoul Teeuwen, Vasso Kalaitzi, Martina Tormar, Heather Flanagan

- Welcome
  * Who is there
   * Who takes care of notes
Heather will take care of notes today and in the future we’ll consider where to put them for more collaborative note taking.
- Discuss finalization of FIM4L proto-charter<https://docs.google.com/document/d/17EllwItlnB3fYhJ2ZNpX6Z1gUfF1948ORRvtbIA_l88/edit?usp=sharing>
  * editing
   * how to publish
Vasso: this is a good document as a basis for discussion within LIBER. They have more than 400 members that will need to be made aware fo the conversation. Will work on this further the week of April 15; her focus will not be on the technical components but instead on communicating the message.

Peter: Regarding LIBER, is it likely this activity will become a LIBER working group? Since we do want this to be a library-led initiative, a LIBER working group would be a good thing.

Vasso: A working group may be the outcome, not a starting point. It has to be part of the overall strategy before a working group can fully form; communication needs to happen first, and that’s where this document will be helpful. The conference in June will be a good target for generalized conversation.

Peter: if there are any requirements that LIBER might have that impact our draft charter, would like to make sure the charter has the right structure for a LIBER working group (less work to do later).

Vasso: Will use the existing document to discuss with the committee chairs; no more changes are needed in the document to make the scope and value proposition clear.

Jos: The document is a great start. We do need to do an editorial pass to take care of things like expanding acronyms, clarifying language so it sounds less like a legal document. If someone wants to add something, please do so within the next week.

Jos: Regarding how to publish, we now have a website (short term: https://daasi.de/fim4l, long term: fim4l.org<http://fim4l.org>) and it can be published there.

Vasso: Note that LIBER working groups are closed; only LIBER members may participate. Instead, LIBER may put this forward as an initiative. What are the categories of stakeholders participating at this moment? That needs to be clear in the charter so we get ALL stakeholders engaged.

Peter: Libraries, NRENS/identity federations, publishers, IT service/infrastructure providers are some of the stakeholder groups. We can group them like this in the charter.

Jos: as a library, we would like to have a policy and a set of recommendations that allows us to choose from a set of options that would allow us alternatives when connecting to a publisher. So we need all the stakeholders involved since getting those options will require more than one group’s actions.

Peter: Also involved in a FIM4R (Federated Identity Management for Researchers) group, which overlaps into an RDA interest group. Perhaps FIM4L could be the same, with FIM4L being bigger and then a LIBER-specific interest group.

Vasso: An interesting idea, but it will take a few weeks to discuss with LIBER steering.

- web page strawman
  * more content in the about section
  * publication of the charter
  * publication of a list of participants

Peter: The website came out of the need for a landing page to point to after a presentation. It needs more text in the about page. There is no logo (yet) which is something we might want to think about. If/when we move this to it’s own web space (and not a Daasi-hosted site) we need infrastructure - web server, CMS - and we need to know who will own/manage the content.

Jos: We need a clear and plain message on the problem that libraries are facing and the proposed solution. We have some time to figure this out; this may end up hosted with LIBER, but they need a few weeks to consider how they will be involved.

Peter: We need to be clear as to who can/should be listed on the web page as participating. Propose that we personalize the list of who is participating (name and organization) in the charter, and include those people on the website.

- Use of FIM4L email list:
   * Technical discussions included? (not sure if neccessary)
    * moderated or not?
Jos: Not sure we can use the list where everyone is involved for in-depth technical discussions.
Raoul: Perhaps create another - a high level list, and another for technical discussion
Sander: Should we even have a technical discussion list, or should we just follow the RA21 and NREN guidance?
Heather: Would much rather this group have enough technical knowledge that they can discuss and decide if the recommendations of other organizations are appropriate for this group. For example, the debate on whether RA21 should continue to recommend eduPersonTargetedID instead of the more current standard of a SAML pair-wise identifier should be discussed here and feedback offered to during the public commend period on RA21.
Jos: Agreed, but we have to account for the fact that people on the list range from Directors of large organizations that do not want to see the technical detail.
Peter: We need low-level technical discussion, esp. for the recommendations/guidelines text. So, support a general FIM4L mailing list, and a technical discussion list about our guideline.
Action: we will create a second mailing list for technical discussion.
Peter: Mailing list policies - the lists aren’t totally open, but the current policy is to let anyone who isn’t a spammer in. But would rather have the group decide whether that’s the right policy. How open should these two mailing lists be? Proposal:   everyone who subscribes should be required to write a short introduction as to why they are joining.
Jos: Right now, everyone knows everyone on the list, so requiring the introductions is a good idea.
Peter: there are currently 31 members on the list. We can request that each of those people send an introduction, and those that don’t get removed from the list.
Other Peter: if we could store those bios somewhere so that future people could also have that history and information about people on the list, that would be helpful.
Jos: Will send out an email to the list requesting that members do introduction.
Barbara: In mailman, there is a configurable option to set a welcome message that can be set to automatically request they send an introduction to the list.
Peter: Will set that message after Jos sends out his request for introductions.

- FIM4L guidelines and recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pIaEXfw9ZWnXM4p6Dd2Lri7RFWKgr7ObKLEGfUy2nck/edit?usp=sharing>
  * general scope
  * level of technical details
   * political frame
- recent adoption of GEANT Data Protection Code of Conduct by RA21
Heather: Will send a note to the mailing list explaining what’s happened within RA21 re: the GEANT DPCoCo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.daasi.de/pipermail/fim4l/attachments/20190404/59073e30/attachment.html>