Hi all from Belgium! Mic problems so will just comments here in chat.

12:09 PM

I do....

12:09 PM

Does IAM industry suffcientely cover our intended member base?

12:11 PM

Andrew H +1

12:11 PM

OPenstand Principles here: https://open-stand.org/about-us/principles/

12:11 PM

for example this non-discriminatory list excludes people with physical handicaps

12:11 PM

Thorsten

+1 from me as well. 'everyone' might be enough

12:12 PM

And linked directly off Kantara's principles here:https://kantarainitiative.org/about/principles/

12:12 PM

try that again.. https://kantarainitiative.org/about/principles/

12:14 PM

Body of Knowlege, or Body of Work?

12:16 PM

Thorsten

even though that is a list as well, its not that problematic than the first one. even if something is missed, its not discrimanatory

12:16 PM

Both?

12:16 PM

Guess best current practive is embedded in body of knowledge, so agree.

12:17 PM

Mic problems...

12:18 PM

Or, just strike 'body of knowledge' from the phrase -

12:18 PM

Thorsten

but best practise is not equal body of work?

12:18 PM

if the sentence is deonstructed "to teach... best current practice... to the relevant...

12:18 PM

Do we need to call out the importance of 'keeping up to date'?

12:19 PM

Guess the word 'current' implies it's up-to-date.

12:21 PM

yes

12:25 PM

Valid point; but guess we need to start somewhere and assume this list of priorities could change through time?

12:26 PM

kendagg to me

agree with andrew

Reply in private

12:26 PM

kendagg

agree with andrew

12:28 PM

Thorsten

I am sorry, have to leave in a few minutes. Eager to hear/see the recordings. bye

12:29 PM

i've got one - last in line please

12:31 PM

kendagg

i've got a comment

12:35 PM

To add....

12:36 PM

also some of the standards reflect the vision of a specific industry sector and doesn't apply to all

12:36 PM

Agree with Collin; contribution to standards which just cross our landscape like gov, finance, etc; not really on core standards inside our practice.

12:37 PM

kendagg

agree wholeheartedly with colin and andrewh

12:38 PM

ian

12:38 PM

kendagg

agree with Catherine --- rationale for advocacy to that sector --- advocacy is a two way street

12:39 PM

in the queue for a brief comment plse.

12:42 PM

Reminder: Please mark your attendance here: http://tinyurl.com/zlr2gkj

12:43 PM

a shibboleth

12:44 PM

letting others speak

12:44 PM

what works in other orgs?

12:44 PM

yes and also no

12:45 PM

Agree; think we need both; open and closed.

12:45 PM

also agree open and closed

12:45 PM

i agree with A.H.

12:46 PM

vendors are in the trenches also

12:46 PM

Yes; mixed; that's providing value.

12:47 PM

forum rules of conduct...

12:47 PM

Yaliman, Mehmet

no cold calls based on forum contribution

12:47 PM

i agree with ah

12:47 PM

other associations have "vendor and marketing' channels

12:47 PM

that are specifically to advertise to ourselves

12:48 PM

yup

12:48 PM

Dobbs, George

Users may be more comfortable with openness than vendors might be. Some sort of rules / moderation probably needed.

12:48 PM

That was Catherine's point. But I do agree with it :)

12:48 PM

Agree with keeping out commercial motivations; but strongly believe mixed and open dialogue is were the value comes from.

12:50 PM

Modification: commercial motivations are valuable - it's being respectful of the channel

12:50 PM

respectful is critical

12:52 PM

Both online and in-person are needed I feel.

12:52 PM

i personally like co-located events with a breakout for the professional group to meet in person

12:53 PM

IDESG Plenary, Gartner IAM forum for example

12:54 PM