September 18, 2014 Meeting Page: Difference between revisions

From IDESG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (2 revisions imported: Initial Upload of old pages from IDESG Wiki)
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 04:04, 28 June 2018

SECURITY COMMITTEE / FUNCTIONAL MODEL PLENARY BREAKOUT MEETINGS NOTES

Meeting Date: September 18, 2014 – Tampa Plenary

Attendees

  • List will be documented.


Meeting Notes

  • Notes taken by Ryan Galluzzo
  • Priorities for the meeting will include discussion of a potential amendment to the FM to support the Health Care committee’s request for a stronger focus on accountability, discuss any framework development plan items, discuss the interaction model, discuss work-planning and timelines.
  • The group discussed pilot input which will be provided by participation in the committees as well as through a group of pilots that meet each week and provide input. Colin Soutar and Joe Stuntz are providing.
  • The group discussed and approved the amendment to the Functional Model.
  • Seetharama presented on his interaction model; there were several suggestions made by members of the committee:
    • Relationship to the functional model and requirements should be clarified
    • Target audience should be made clearer
    • Make it clearer that this could be used to both help generate requirements, communicate them, and refine them
  • Adam walked through his presentation on the framework development plan and the strategic plan
    • The committee was in agreement that neither plan should impact their priorities
    • The committee suggested that there should be an established mechanism for sharing information about requirements development between the committees; this will be a request of the committee presented during the report out this afternoon
    • The committee would like input from the framework development plan team on what is meant by “baseline;” the committee should still decide what is in and what is not, but they would like some insight from leadership to help frame their own conversations
    • There was a suggestion that benchmarking could be done to try to set the bar for initial requirements—also, what are services doing “post hack” to improve their practices