If you have a use case that connects multiple building blocks, please link to it in the Logical Process Blueprint so other teams can find it: Logical process blueprint - Google Documenten
Please update any links to security or architectural requirements to refer to the PDF version and section number https://www.govstack.global/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Security_Building_Block_Definition_1.0.1.pdf and https://www.govstack.global/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Architecture_Blueprint_and_Nonfunctional_Requirements_1.0.1.pdf
Please update the milestones checklist date and status fields: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14cN1r6ei2vBkK_wxLoRzCYfxyKQWUcmz/edit#gid=2076341028
Agenda for this meeting:
• Review each group’s progress (standup!)
• Review progress on PPTs
• Reminder about using the building block definition template
• Reminder about writing down significant changes and decisions in a log under a header in your building block definition 1.1.0 Building_Block_Definition_Template_1.1.0.docx - Google Documenten
• Reminder to provide source for all images and diagrams, ideally draw.io, web sequence diagrams so they can be edited and evolved.
• Review last week’s key decisions and see if they’ve been addressed
• Review the milestone checklist: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14cN1r6ei2vBkK_wxLoRzCYfxyKQWUcmz/edit#gid=530338604
• Work on the next sprint’s logical process outlines and flow diagrams
• Reminder to link any flow diagrams to the logical process blueprint: Logical process blueprint - Google Documenten
• Update on progress and issues with using https://discourse.govstack.global/
It was so lovely to see everyone again:
+ Taylor asked about upcoming deadlines. In the next week to 10 days, we will close the TAC documents for comments. Then, by mid-late February we will formaily publish the documents - very exciting!
+ Taylor (workflow) hasn’t met yet this year, they will meet again next week. They’ve submitted a draft of the specification and are waiting for review!
+ Aleksander (IM) has nothing new to report.
+ Ramkumar (scheduling) has updated his document. It’s also ready for review.
+ Max (Architecture) mentioned we’re working on the code of conduct document that people can comment on the procedures and processes. See Code of Conduct - Google Documenten for the current early draft. We are also focusing on document revisioning, publishing and management.
+ Ingmar (Registration/Registries) is waiting on the reviews
+ Ain (Consent) are past the use case consolidation phase and are working on data models and data structures. For ID and verification we need a discussion around functional ID and workflow.
+ Jaume (ID) is working on improving their documentation
+ Aleksander (IM) reminded me there are several open pull requests on github.
+ We will look for a better ‘home’ and collaboration system that’s better than what we have today.
Previous key decisions:
+ Publish and subscribe won’t include any additional filtering of recipients beyond rooms.
+ Google meet is causing way too many issues so we’re moving back to Jitsi
+ We will look for places to include messaging and publish/subscribe in the registration for post partum and infant care use case (to show in the demo) or others if they make more sense
+ Please identify people who would be good for an internal review of your BB specs and let Ramkumar and myself know!
+ First wave groups to get BB specs ready for technical review by December 1.
+ Add a section to your BB specs for items that will be deferred to version 2.0.
+ We will consider the governance use cases for configuring their building block. Does it have APIs for configuration, an UI or just environment variables - and why?
+ All use cases should be uploaded to, and linked to from Use cases - Google Drive
+ All use cases and workflows should be linked to from the Logical process blueprint: Logical process blueprint - Google Documenten
+ After onboarding, new groups will join this cross-block working group meeting with all teams when ready
+ Max will combine the cross-building block project boards
+ Payments will include a precondition requiring a voucher redemption partner component with functionality and APIs and a recommendation that Registration/Registries BB be used
+ We will pause work on pubsub until we have a validated use case
+ We will seek an example from the Estonian (and other) governments about real use cases for pubsub for citizens at scale. Please seek use cases from relevant folk (Max to reach out to Kristo and Kratt and Ireland about this)
+ Workgroups must update the milestone checklist by Monday of next week, when it will be snapshotted for the monthly meeting: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14cN1r6ei2vBkK_wxLoRzCYfxyKQWUcmz/edit#gid=530338604
+ Ayush will be helping groups with OpenAPI specification formatting, starting with Information Mediator
+ Discourse needs a ‘Digital Registries’ building block section, with a corresponding email address
+ We might consider moving the building blocks
+ Registration for foundational ID authentication is completely separate from registration for information mediator access
+ GovStack will ship with consent management and distributed ID on by default
+ Information mediator publish/subscribe will use point to point method to keep the security benefits of the information mediator - but it requires subscriptions to each publisher that could send an event. This is different from true publish/subscribe where the subscriber doesn’t need to know the list of senders. Information mediator’s directory of senders could be extended to list all potential publishers of a given event to help ease this pain.
+ Added a new cross-cutting requirement: Architecture and nonfunctional requirements - Google Documenten If an API response will take longer than 5 seconds, you SHOULD return a ticket with a suggested callback time that is resolved by polling
+ All groups will update references to the Architecture Blueprint to point to the PDF version, including a version number: https://www.govstack.global/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Architecture_Blueprint_and_Nonfunctional_Requirements_1.0.1.pdf
+ Groups should feel free to update terminology to be understood across groups under section 5: Architecture and nonfunctional requirements - Google Documenten
+ Consider minimum performance requirements for each building block and possibly in the blueprint as well
+ Groups will add columns for Owner and Current activity for their tab in the milestone checklist: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14cN1r6ei2vBkK_wxLoRzCYfxyKQWUcmz/edit#gid=107377580 - also, please keep dates and status updated
+ We will consider how to mark fields as part of data models as sensitive, whether for fraud or PII leakage - to allow for extra caution by tooling downstream, e.g. masking PII or payment details. This may require a secure information vault, as payments is not holding payment account details.
+ Steve was able to resolve the ‘reply-all’ issue in Discourse. Here is the complete list of email addresses for groups to use:
Architecture Category: email@example.com
Architecture Meeting notes: firstname.lastname@example.org
Information Mediator: email@example.com
Consent Management: firstname.lastname@example.org
+ We still need to sort out how to give groups their own meeting notes topic. For now, groups could use the above email addresses with a ‘meeting minutes XX-XX-XXXX’ subject line.
+ All OpenAPI specifications should be published as JSON
+ OpenAPI specifications will be merged into the master repo for governance
+ Resource models in JSONSchema format are required as part of each specification.
+ Max will make sure each group has a meeting minutes category and corresponding email address to cc
+ All groups will update links to key documents on Discourse here: GovStack Documents and Resources
+ Max will follow up with Steve/DIAL to try to fix the issue CC’ing discourse emails can work beyond the initial message for a subject. Followup emails don’t seem to be showing up under topics, which is missing participant feedback.
+ Architecture will publish .pdf versions of their documents to facilitate linking and referencing by other groups, e.g. https://www.govstack.global/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Security_Building_Block_Definition_1.0.1.pdf
+ All groups will link to .pdf versions of the Security Specification: https://www.govstack.global/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Security_Building_Block_Definition_1.0.1.pdf
+ Architecture will reach out to new groups to schedule a separate cross-group meeting (Tues or Weds preferred by Max)
+ Payments will move language specific to their group from the Logical Process Blueprint Logical process blueprint - Google Documenten and link to it
+ All groups will review and link to the cross-cutting requirements of the Security building block definition Security Building Block Definition.docx - Google Documenten. Groups will review additional functional requirements that and point to those as well. Groups are free to consult with the Architecture and Security groups once this is done.
+ Groups can request a formal review from the Architecture group at any time.
+ All use cases that connect multiple building blocks should be linked from the Logical process blueprint: Logical process blueprint - Google Documenten
+ Transactional system of record registries MUST use a document-based approach and MUST copy all records, e.g. a doctor’s record must be copied into a snapshot as part of a prescription. If you store a foreign key, e.g. doctor’s reg number and their phone number or address changes the record will be incorrect. Therefore, documents stored in system of record registries MUST copy all the data onto the document to provide a record as a snapshot in time, and SHOULD retain references to all foreign keys/references to objects copied for auditing, e.g. to the doctor’s address and phone number record URIs. This capability will be part of the registration building block.
Thanks to everyone that attended!
Action items for each working group:
• Continue to work on your own copy of the Building Block Definition Template DEPRECATED Building Block Definition Template.docx - Google Documenten. At least the Key Digital Functionalities, Cross-cutting requirements and Functional Requirements sections should be filled in based on the specific requirements outlined in the logical process blueprints: Logical process blueprint - Google Documenten and functional components in the logical process checklists for the use cases already covered (e.g. registration, payments and case management for Postpartum and Infant Care): Logical process checklist - registration - post partum and infant care.xlsx - Google Spreadsheets Logical process checklist - payments - postpartum and infant care.xlsx - Google Spreadsheets and Logical process checklist - case management - postpartum and infant care.xlsx - Google Spreadsheets.
• Ensure your Building Block Definition Template and other documents are accessible via Teams so other groups can see them.
• Review the logical process blueprint for the current sprint (Case Management - Postpartum and Infant Care) and add any comments or questions that come up: Logical process blueprint - Google Documenten
• Confirm the components for your building block designated in the logical process checklist are correct: Logical process checklist - case management - postpartum and infant care.xlsx - Google Spreadsheets
• Review the building block flow diagrams for Logical process blueprint - Google Documenten UC-P-USCT-001: Payment - Unconditional Social Cash Transfer (bank payments) - Google Documenten and UC-P-USCT-002: Payment - Unconditional Social Cash Transfer (non-electronic/cash payments) - Google Documenten
• Identify folks who could be good for the new working groups we’re spinning up: consent management, messaging, marketplace, scheduling and workflow!
Agenda for next week:
• Review each group’s progress (standup!)
• Review group’s documents in the context of how a specific arrow in a flow diagram maps to specific functionality in the block
• Reiterate that use cases are not to be taken as gospel, they can be rewritten and new use cases can be created that more accurately reflect reality
• It’s fine to break a building block into multiple blocks that better map to functional domains
• Reminder to provide source for all images diagrams, ideally draw.io, web sequence diagrams so they can be edited and evolved
• Work on the next sprint’s logical process outlines and flow diagrams
• Github and discourse overview
From the chat:
(whoops, forgot to capture this!)
Meeting minutes (Cross-team standup has the recording and transcription):
Would it be possible to start with maybe a two minute recap there before we dig into the stand ups for the individual working groups?
Max Carlson 0:08
Absolutely. Um, well, let's see. I mean, I don't I think, you know, there was such a scramble at the end of the year to get the THC reviews completed. I think, you know, there's been a fair bit of progress reviewing those, but you know, not really. And then between that and vacation, I don't think that a whole lot has really changed. Okay. So I think one issue for some of us that, that I plan to address head on with Hania as soon as I can get in touch with him is just, you know, what's going on with, you know, contracts and payments and things like that? Because I, you know, and how can we just be more clear and open about that process with folks? Because there have been a number of questions around that. But, you know, I'm sure that's not, you know, not going to be an issue. It's not an issue. But, you know, I think just things have been, you know, pretty, pretty shut down. I mean, I think Connie only got back to work, you know, this week. So, you know, I think he's had some, you know, some some family things he's been dealing with and whatnot. So, he's been kind of under the, under the gun. Yeah, well, I mean, I have as well. So I don't think there's anything, you know, major to report, I think it's just where the next steps are going to be getting the THC documents, like we have this sort of that what's happening now is we have this friendly reviewers, right. And, you know, they've made a bunch of comments in the documents, I know, Amy and others have made a bunch of comments and documents just about, you know, styling and consistency to make them, you know, a bit more consistent. And then I think the next stage is going to be, you know, iterating on those and then releasing them for more public consumption. And also doing a more formal doing, the more following the more formal publication process, once we, once everyone feels like, they're in good shape. And, you know, I was so you know, caught up in my own THC content production that I, you know, I, you know, I need to go back and review everyone's documents with a fine tooth comb as well, particularly, you know, with a with a view towards the open API specifications, and, and whatnot. And then for groups who were kind of in the second wave, or the second heat, you know, it's just continuing to iterate on those on the, on their, on their specifications. You know, I mean, the other awesome new thing is we got some, you know, new team members. So Rachel Lawson has joined us from dial and she's been really, really helpful. Yeah. So, she's been great to work with, and really, really helpful in terms of, you know, she brings a lot of experience from the open source community, you know, managing really large open source projects, like Drupal. So, you know, she's, she's bringing a lot to the table to help us. You know, you know, bringing new perspectives. And so that's been, that's been really wonderful. So that's, that's another change. For the better. You know, one thing that was a little sad about is we lost a member for payments, who's, you know, really, really great. But he's going to become the CIO of Estonia. So that's kind of awesome. So, if you talk to, if you talk to Lucas, congratulate him, wish them well, and, you know, hopefully he can help crystallize, you know, or help us help influence how we're all interacting with the Estonian government and the Estonian government's contributions. So Ramkumar Welcome. Nice to see you. Really great to see you. So I think Taylor was asking, you know, kind of like, here. Yeah, I gotta turn on my camera for a minute. Yeah. Got to do it. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So okay, I'll turn it off again, just to save people's bandwidth. But, um, it's great to see you guys. So, uh, anyway, um, Taylor's just asking about changes, you know, or the, you know, kind of, there hasn't been a lot of communication, rump Tamar since the THC reviews went in with the various groups. And so I think Taylor was just curious, you know, what are the next steps and So do you want to give your perspective? Yeah,
yeah, no. And I was just sort of anticipating I think Alexander and me when when we do our stand up for, for Iam will will probably just say we give our presentation and are eagerly awaiting feedback. But yeah, I was just wondering if there's any any guidelines on like what the timelines were or how things were going to start back up, post those reviews? Because I'm sure there will be plenty of work to do after those reviews come in?
Max Carlson 5:30
Well, in terms of timelines, I think the next deadline, I believe, is February 15. So we're going to try to, you know, encourage everyone to get their, you know, feedback incorporated in the documents. And then, you know, we want to do a formal publication process officially published, you know, as version PDF files on the Govtech website, like we've done with some of the documents already security and the architecture document. So in terms of hard deadlines, or what's coming up next, that's one that I'm more Rumford. Do you have anything to add?
Yeah, I'm just sending out a mailer, this follow up mail on all the reviewers. So that target is perhaps in the next 110 days to get conclusive feedback from everyone selected, and then we will have an internal meeting like this, probably, after the teams have looked at the feedback so that we can review. In the comments right now, what if there are any comments that we can't absorb? Some of those feedbacks are put it in version two, I think we have to do that exercise week, or 10 days once we get this feedback to my action item, because I'm going to send out this mailer to all the reviewers requesting them to conclude their feedbacks. So that in that presentation discussion, then we can see between the reviewers and our own folks, what comes up as what should be absorbed right now. And what cannot be and what should we postpone? That's the goal. Right? Now, by end of this month, we should have something concrete so that then it goes into the process of making it publishable making it, etc, ramping it up so that by end of February, we have it out of the box. Ready to go?
Max Carlson 7:31
Yeah, and that's just gonna be a version one, right? I mean, if there's, if there's stuff that's still in progress, or isn't really quite locked down, we can defer that to a subsequent revision.
Come as feedback may fall in worship. But that's what we have to kind of think through once we get it. So I think we have a week 10 days to get that to get to that stage where you can sit with it and decide. So in the meanwhile, I think, still, while feedbacks are coming in, there are a couple of things I think we can do, because we like we were preparing for presentation of the views and so on, there'll be some discoveries that we would have made on the way. And one definitely, I think where we need help from Rachel and from me is how can we harmonize all these formats across this specifications? Documents, we have that so that it looks like one agency's document, it doesn't look like five guys in five different ways. And second thing is, of course, we are trying to get our hands together, we still need to figure out how to streamline the process of documentation and all the stuff that we will do anyways, with that help going forward. But from the team's perspective, if there were any leftovers that we had said, Okay, let's look at it later. Right now, if we can't do it, in the in the, in the hurry of doing those presentations, for the review process. Just check back whether there's anything left over we didn't we couldn't do it at that point. We have a week, 10 days right now to close those things out. Okay, great. Wonderful. Yes. When I tell you can work.
Unknown Speaker 9:23
Hi, I just wanted to say I'm already giving some thought to how we can do the documentation in a way that will make it a lot more sort of structured in terms of the output etc and a lot easier for us. Especially because we need to consider to be able to release versions over time and countries will need each individual country might need their own fork and then of that of that staff and then we must want to be able to You bring some of that thought back into the main domain kind of thing at some point too. So we need to think about these things. However, I think it's also true to say that we all are looking for a way of doing that that still feels like Google Docs. Yeah. That's kind of where we want to be, we want to be able to comment directly within the content, you want to be able to easily all editor, etc, etc. Am I understanding this correctly?
I have I have my observation on that, because I also struggled in when we were trying to put documents together in the last week before that. And I actually noted down some points that I can elaborate tomorrow and discussion. But I think Rachel's basic thing is this. Google Docs allows us to put comments, and there are different versions of those documents, there will be comments, you can accept them, reject them, and then it will vanish. It will be probably there in that version. But the struggle is after 566 or, you know, 1025 revisions. Yeah. Now, let's say there is a comment and I want to trace it back as to what was the how it was resolved, what decision was taken. So on, there's no pathway. Well, there actually was such for each version.
Max Carlson 11:23
Yeah, well, there actually is. And, you know, rather than having this whole debate, while we have so many people on the call, I propose that we just maybe talk about it tomorrow, as part of the extra meeting.
Something that enables this is the need to be able to trace back any any of those comments. Yeah. I understand where to find a means of doing that. That's all.
Unknown Speaker 11:44
I've got some thoughts. Yes. We've got some thoughts. And it means I'm going in the right direction, which is good. Yeah,
Max Carlson 11:50
absolutely. Absolutely. So yeah, we I mean, we've all got a lot of thoughts on it. We actually do have a formal publication process that we've outlined. That covers versioning and whatnot. So we can go over that tomorrow. But you know, so let's, let's cover that tomorrow, if you don't mind. And then, you know, just get on with a stand up. Yeah, but
thanks. Thanks, Rachel. You've been sending your thoughts on it already. So tomorrow, we have productive discussion.
Max Carlson 12:19
Absolutely. Absolutely. Wonderful. Okay. Well, so let's, let's do a quick stand up if folks don't mind. So you know, who wants to go? I mean, Taylor, you pretty much gave a stand up for information mediator. You have anything that you want to anything else like for workflow you want to cover or?
Yeah, sure. Workflow. We we haven't met yet. This year. We're starting up on Wednesday. Next week. We submitted the we submitted the draft of the specification before the end of the year, and obviously knew that the reviewers were focused on the first round of Working Group specs, so no applications that are just trying to plan it is ready for that initial review. And we'll push forward on on Wednesday, and I'll have more pitch for you next week.
Max Carlson 13:18
Okay, wonderful. Okay, and then information mediator. Alexander. Is there anything that you wanted to add?
Actually, nothing. In this in between this meetings with reviewers, and now or nothing happened in, in documentation,
Max Carlson 13:40
didn't see your publisher new API spec, though? Did you didn't they see that you published a new updated API spec, as it was
before? On on a day before review, it was published? So it's, it's before that,
Max Carlson 13:57
okay. Okay. Great. Wonderful. All right, who'd like to go next?
Again, given a bit on scheduler set up, this, whatever was written before the Christmas break, it was on the tribe. And, of course, people are on holidays. I haven't reached much of feedback on that. But I have updated continued on that. So the updated version, I'll be posting it now to Dr. have gone beyond the use case and gone to the data models and data structures and so on. The sooner I can get some feedback because there are some overlaps. I think with workflow with consent with messaging and so on, maybe through the next week. When I sit in your meetings, we can give me a five minute slot to also review if there's overlap with scheduler, as well as past your comments on that document that I'll be putting
Max Carlson 15:00
But, yeah, that's fine. And that's also just to remind everyone, that's really one of the key purposes of this meeting is to identify those overlaps and, you know, decide who's responsible. So we could do that today, even if you like.
Yeah. So we can we like to review it, because it starts from use cases, as usual, come down to resource models and workflow and etc.
Max Carlson 15:23
Beautiful, beautiful. Okay, great. Well, I mean, I can give an update for architecture, you know, not a whole lot of progress. Since the TSU reviews and vacation, but we're, you know, already getting back into the swing of things. One of the biggest focuses for us is to come up with a code of conduct. And so, you know, the idea there is to come up with something, you know, that we can all agree with, that we all, you know, feel we can all be on board with. That, that basically makes sure that all decisions made within and across working groups, even in these meetings are transparent and open, that everyone can participate, make suggestions? If there's conflicts? Well, we'll have a conflict resolution process, you know, and a tiebreaker. We're probably going to start with Ito itu code of conduct. You know, but if anybody has any suggestions for good places to start creating a code of conduct document, that'd be really helpful. I mean, that's pretty much our that's our most immediate focus, I think right now. Other than, you know, refining this document, publishing and editing process that, that Rachel was alluding to before. So that's it for us for architecture.
Unknown Speaker 16:54
I hear two Max. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 16:56
fair number of hands raised Max. Okay.
Max Carlson 16:59
All right. I'm sorry. I'm like trying to type notes. And so Alright, so who? Let's see who raise a hand. Alright, so Rachel. Yeah, go ahead. Raise your hand. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 17:11
So I was just gonna say, as it happens, I seem to be doing quite well, here, it's one of the easiest things about being you is you can you can dive into things. So obviously, I've got a bit of experience things like code of conduct. So I'm going to take on getting up and running. And because we need to write a code of conduct, and people need to be able to comment upon it and help get the procedures and processes right. I'm going to experiment with a document management tool that will let us test things out and see whether that could be a way, way forward. Because that gives us an opportunity to test things out and make sure that people are happy. And so the two combined quite well together. Yes, please, if you have an interest in things like codes of conduct, please give me a shout and say hello. I'll pop my email address into the chat in a moment, in case you don't already have it. I'd very much like to get something to a point where others can then comment on it. We need to be so I'll copy some stuff in, I've already got permission for us to reuse a lot of suitors and stuff on the Drupal community because that means we're not having to do everything from scratch. Now, so I've already arranged that. So that should help a lot. But yeah, if you're interested in the code conduct, and please give us a shout. And we can collaborate.
Max Carlson 18:45
Yeah, I mean, it might might almost be good to have like a separate, you know, maybe a separate meeting for that. Definitely. Yeah. So anyway, I'll just post you know, there's this really early nucleus of a document that I essentially, that we that we started last week. So I'll just post it over there. So, you know, in lieu of anybody, you know, if anybody wants to put any comments for now, or has ideas, there's not much there. So it's an open book, we really, absolutely want to be inclusive and make sure that everybody's ideas about that are included. So, yeah, okay, great. Wonderful. And then one more thing is, we're, you know, exploring the idea. And Amy has been looking into this a fair bit of using a more formal kind of project management tool, something like JIRA for task assignment, because it's a little bit loose right now. We can assign tasks in GitHub, but not everybody's on GitHub, right? You can assign stuff in Google Docs, but that doesn't always seem to work. And it's difficult to get an overview of where everybody is. So we're looking at adding a more form A project management tool, certainly for the architecture group, but also for other groups to use as well. So, um, if anybody has any, like suggestions for that, we're probably going to go with big old battle Jira, just because it's
Max Carlson 20:19
Probably. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, probably Jira, because it almost acts like a mock up
for tomorrow's discussion. Absolutely, absolutely. Wouldn't
it be better to have open source something? JIRA is proprietary,
Max Carlson 20:36
it is proprietary. And it's also free for open source projects, kind of like GitHub. So, okay, yeah, it would be better to use something open source. If you have any suggestions, please send them along. You know, but I mean, it's like, I want to, you know, if it's a web service, that if it's a if it's like an online service that we can just pay for or even better yet get for free. That'd be my preference, rather than something we have to host ourselves, like GitLab, or whatever. So if you have any suggestions, please post them in the chat. Okay. And then Ingmar, you had your hand raised as well.
Yeah. Hi. I've been, I've been away for a while. Just wanted to ask a quick question. Related to the technical review, the answers are coming back this month or the next month.
Max Carlson 21:31
They should be within the next 10 days. All right,
excellent. Other than that, no big changes in our working groups. Waiting, just the answers and then hoping to get some demo time as well. And definitely would vote for JIRA. And Confluence for a document management. Okay, that would make things much, much simpler. Yep. on that. No other news? Okay. Great.
All right. Alright. general solution, whatever tools which we kind of converge on, I think there'll be a need to have a training session on that to kind of assume everybody's familiar with everything that we choose.
Max Carlson 22:21
Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Unfortunately, we've got, you know, one of the best JIRA experts that I've ever worked with on our team. So she's absolutely tremendous. And it's Amy. So, you know, I mean, if folks are okay with that, I mean, I kind of I kind of I kind of hate it, but it's kind of like democracy, it's, it's the best I've ever heard of him. Oh,
Max, you're muted. If
Max Carlson 22:43
I was just ranting away with my Mic, mic. No, I just want to say, fortunately, we've got a really awesome, really strong juror expert on our team. So you know, unless somebody's it's sort of like democracy, it's like, the worst, but the best we've got. So we'll probably go that but we want to make, we want to make sure we're not gonna impose it on anyone. It's just like all these other tools that we have, you know, they're they're tools that that will be open for and free for everyone to use. But we, you know, so definitely send your feedback if you got a strong feeling one or another. Okay, cool. So
okay, I can I can go next to max about the consensus won't be a long rant for me. Great. So we had, we had good time, both actually in between the holidays, how I started the first two weeks for this year. So we are past the use case, consolidation phase within our own group, and we have had some good feedback already from some others. So now we are working on the beta models and data structures. I think something which we are more or less happy amongst ourselves, which we reach tomorrow around Kumar, if you can participate in our call tomorrow. I hope you can have some good words for us. So we really made some progress. But what we also agreed yesterday is that I will bring up that for the identity verification building block, we really need to have a good discussion around the functional ID, we are getting to the point where we need some decision somewhere. We don't know whether this is the building block that is authorized to solve those decisions. Such we certainly would like to have a good chat and then also tailor with the workability work. Again, we have made some strong assumptions. And we'd like to kind of clarify them sooner rather than later. So I have a mandate to to ask for your suggestions for those meetings, perhaps like 3045 minutes would be sufficient. If any of those groups can participate tomorrow morning, guys, it's 10 o'clock cet We are more than happy to welcome at our meeting. But other than that next week, just to just a few timeslots, or I will start off, and then we'll continue from there. Over.
Max Carlson 25:11
Okay, wonderful. Great to hear about all the progress on the amazing work. So, you know, again, these meetings are kind of good for these discussions. So maybe we can dive in after we do this.
I'm sorry. Yes, I suggested that, but since there are some technical issues, so it would be preferable if if allowed from our group could present and this week today, he said he couldn't make the time. So yes, that was an initial plan. So if there is no other alternative, then we can just reach time to do that. So that's, that's fine as well.
Max Carlson 25:49
Yeah. I mean, I'm fine. You know, feel free to invite me, I'm happy to come to join Ramkumar if you're available. Please tailor if you're available. And then, you know, as far as ID and functional ID specifically, I think the plan was that that was something that security owns. Right. But you know, because there's an Identity and Access Management module and security. Right. And so, you know, we That's the current plan, just so I'll see if I can get, you know, if you send me an invite, I'll see if I can get the relevant security folks to come as well.
Unknown Speaker 26:29
Okay, cool. Thanks. Okay, great.
Max Carlson 26:33
Okay, who's next?
Maybe you can put this, this link to somewhere. So every one who wants to join can do it.
Max Carlson 26:43
Yeah, I've been thinking about that. Like, maybe we need, you know, a shared Google Calendar or something like that. I don't know. And Google group, or I've been trying not to get too much deeper into the Google verse. But it does work pretty well. So
it's a specific meeting, invite. Just share it. Yeah, exactly. I
wanted to. So when you mentioned meaning of the link, Max, did you did you think that is the kind of dedicated meeting on the functional ID with a security group? And was that the question that you asked?
I am interested also.
Max Carlson 27:23
Yeah. So I mean, I'll try to get you know, I'll be there. I mean, if they, if security can't make it, I can wrap it for them. Right. Okay. You know, but, you know, it's it is kind of short notice, like tomorrow morning at 10. So, and it might not work for people in the US, etc, etc. Some time zones, but, you know, just please send me an invite. I'll forward it to the relevant security folks. Please, please invite everybody in this meeting. Invite Alexander and Ramkumar and, and giome. If you want to join, you're more than welcome. But I mean, it My understanding is that really, security has identity access management module, which is more about functional ID. Right. And, you know, the ID is more about okay, yeah. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 28:11
Cool. All right. Thanks.
Max Carlson 28:15
Correct me if I'm wrong, John, but that's my understanding.
Can't hear you, buddy. Okay, uh, I guess. Let's see. Who else do we have? I mean, I guess it's Joan. Um, but I'm not able to hear you.
Unknown Speaker 28:38
Hello, guys. Yes, we are talking about time. So in France 40 days. And right now, the General Secretary pronouns simply due to being too elaborate. builds and to improve documents. That's the goal for the moment. Okay, wonderful. Great stuff.
Max Carlson 29:12
Okay, well, I think that's it for Stan.
Max, unless thinking that we should also kind of there is some dependency and linkage between the demo that you're planning. We had that meeting yesterday. And people hear
Max Carlson 29:33
Oh, yeah. Yeah, totally.
Exchange because I'm seeing that ultimately, your demo must demonstrate your spec.
Max Carlson 29:44
Yeah, well, exactly. So it's gonna damage so that's a really good point from from our thanks for raising that. So one of the one of the projects that we've been working on is getting a live demo of registration for postpartum and the care use case up and running on our own infraction. are using existing digital public good. So it's specifically X road and the intot, that the amazing EU taught registration and registry system that Ingmar and others have put together and taught. So. So part of that is to part of the, you know, and we talked about this, in these meetings, a fair amount. Part of it is trying to demonstrate as many interactions between building blocks as possible, even if it's a little bit artificial. And the plan is to basically take an open API, take your open API specifications, for portions of the open API specifications that are necessary to complete the use case, and stub those out, right, in such a way that they always respond in a consistent way or you know, something that's relatively simplistic, right, but still have a real building block that's still really connected through information mediator, that, that at least uses a subset of your API is of your open API specification. And then the the plan with that is, then we can change that out for a real building block when it becomes available. And it becomes, you know, becomes much more real, right? So if we're talking about, you know, functional ID, right? Versus foundation ID, right. I mean, we can exercise both of those functionalities in a simple way. But then, as soon as a real functional and foundational identification, and authorization and authentication systems are available, we can then swap out the stubbed out versions with the real building blocks. So that's kind of like in broad strokes what we're talking about. So it shouldn't affect you too much. I mean, the most important thing is just that's why we're, you know, going over that use case over and over and over again, and trying to find touch points and interactions between the building blocks, that makes sense. And but it shouldn't affect the work that you're doing, because we're just going to be taking the portions of your open API specification that are relevant, and using those to build the demo. Does that make sense to folks? It's kind of a parallel track that we're doing. Okay, I guess. Silence is golden. Let's see. So um, okay, so I guess that concludes our stand up. So thank you so much. This is really important to kind of give people an overview. So I guess, pardon?
Transcribed by https://otter.ai