Heather,
I completely agree about not drifting. My understanding is that Joni had
some specific ideas about next steps but that doesn't mean we can't end the
DG.
So ....
Second.
-----Original Message-----
From: dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org
[mailto:dg-am-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Heather Flanagan
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:24 PM
To: dg-am@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: [DG-AM] motion to close the DG
Hi all -
I haven't heard any direct feedback regarding the proposed working group
charter, nor feedback on whether this discussion group is ready to close. I
would rather we make an active decision to close or not, rather than just
sort of drifting away, so I am making a formal motion to that we should set
up an e-vote for the group to decide on whether or not to close the DG down.
Motion: The AMDG will move to an e-vote to conclude the Attribute Management
Discussion group.
Do we have a second for this motion? Any discussion or disagreement?
Thanks!
Heather
----- Original Message -----
From: "Heather Flanagan"
To: dg-am@kantarainitiative.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:32:21 PM
Subject: Notes from today's LC call re: the proposed Attribute Management WG
Hello all -
The LC met today and, among other things, discussed the proposed Attribute
Management Work Group charter. Below are the notes from that discussion.
To summarize: some further wordsmithing is desired and one person has
stepped forward to help sponsor the charter through the process, though 3
sponsors, including 2 Members, are required for the formation of a new WG.
Proposed Charter - Attribute Management Work Group
The AMDG has published their report, had a number of next steps
discussion, there is work to do beyond what would be in the scope of a DG,
so it is likely time to form a WG
Two paths identified: an ongoing landscape review; more active component
around Framework Definition and Best Practice around an attribute broker
model and the certification - not how to exchange or build trust, but how to
verify attributes and what is appropriate for those exchanges; basically
attributes as a component of compliance; so this group would be reaching out
to a broad range of stakeholders to liaise with them (OASIS for the Trust
Elevation, OIX for the Exchange, etc)
One comment received: better positioned as a Creative Commons IPR policy
not a PC and RAND IPR
Discussion
(ColinW) is this too non specific or should it tie more tightly with
some of the other groups working in this space? email response back is that
the positioning is right because it is not overlapping and is adjacent
enough; note that the verbal explanation is more clear than what is written;
there should be an allowance for word-smithing of the charter but otherwise
supportive of this moving forward (will have his name on it as a proposer)
Call for other proposers? none on this call (no discussion)
At this point, I think the DG group work is pretty much done and we should
consider a vote to close the group. Other thoughts?
The proposed charter is available online:
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/GAGgAw
-Heather
_______________________________________________
DG-AM mailing list
DG-AM@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-am