February 5, 2015 Meeting Page

From IDESG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

SECURITY COMMITTEE / FUNCTIONAL MODEL MEETING NOTES - draft

Meeting Date: February 5, 2015

Attendees

  • Adam Madlin
  • Andrew Hughes
  • Ann Racuya-Robbins
  • Bob Pinheiro
  • Christopher Spottiswoode
  • Linda Braun, Global Inventures
  • Mike Garcia
  • Martin Smith
  • Paul Knight
  • Ryan Galluzzo
  • Sal D'Agostino
  • Suzanne Lightman


Meeting Notes

  • Notes taken by Linda Braun
  • General updates:
    • Annual elections for elected officers of the IDESG began on January 22, 2015. Please see the following links for more information:
      • 2015 Election Schedule
      • 2015 Call for Nominations
      • 2015 Nominations Form
      • 2015 Election FAQs
    • Future Plenary – Adam indicated that the Management Council wanted to leverage more virtual Plenary meetings. Going forward we will have fewer F2F meeting. One more is planned for this year. Others will be virtual and the logistics are being worked out.
  • Plenary Feedback
    • Technologies went well and progress made. Good logistics for remote attendees. A little more communication on polling would help; didn’t realize there were different codes for each vote.
    • Requirements are far from a releasable set of requirements. When is that planned? Everyone is aware of this and emphasis is towards summer release of initial framework. We have a lot of work in front of us to do. There is progress being made, especially with new Executive Director onboard now. We have a marketing communications firm now in place to put out strong branding and communications work. FMO is engaged; preliminaries out of the way. They will be providing committees with feedback on requirements this coming week.
    • We focused on smaller set of topics and came away with good feedback that the Plenary was very constructive. This was the first opportunity where we were able to pull all requirements together as a set and that gave us insight as to how each committee is working.
    • Adam wants to have a full set of requirements completed within one month. He encouraged everyone to review documents he sent out to the Security Committee listserv on February 3, including the timeline. We received some preliminary feedback from the FMO, which was included in the email attachment as a shortened presentation, and indicated we will receive additional detailed feedback. While waiting on this additional feedback Adam suggested we should work on refining our requirements based on the initial feedback.
    • Adam recommended we look at requirements that are relevant, realistic, balance and can be measured. We need to take another pass at our requirements and fill in gaps and other missing requirements. One area identified – supporting information – that needs work.
      • Comment: A number of requirements look like best practices. What we have created is high –level and we aren’t going to tell him how to achieve or implement. Based on feedback from Plenary, our requirements are 60-80% close to being complete.
      • Comment: A lot of requirements are aspirational and if we leave people to do these their own way, there could be an issue, especially from an interoperability perspective. Yes, we should be technology agnostic at one level, but not in regards to semantics of exchanges when interoperability is involved.
      • Comment: We shouldn’t be recommending product specific requirements, if self- assessing, we should make as much progress as possible. If you have a responsible party who wants to self-assess, that they will be accountable for, then we need to give them feedback as to when they have met requirement. Someone asked about the relationship to SC and trustmark progress and if someone could help us?
      • For next week’s meeting, Adam said the committee will focus on reviewing other committee requirements as they relate to the SC. He suggested we put together a comment matrix for those requirements. The other committee requirements are on the file depot. Adam asked that the SC become familiar with requirements from other committees and come prepared to discuss.
      • Someone asked about the role of the FMO and SME going forward. Adam said if there are projects that the SC or any committee needs help on, we can submit to the FMO. It can be more informal than our original proposal. Primary focus of FMO is to pull all requirements together and make sure there is consistency in grammar, make sure there are no gaps, provide feedback to committees, do checks on requirements to make sure the requirements are measurable and consistent.
    • Paul Knight pointed people to the FMO folder on the filedepot – See IDE requirements.
    • Someone mentioned he had a request for the FMO. It will be brought up at interoperability meeting later today. Adam said to write it up and submit to Lionel, Cathy and Standards Committee.
  • New business/other topics
    • None.


Action Items

  • Next meeting February 12, 2015


Quick Links: Security Committee | Functional Model | Security Committee Meeting Notes | Security Committee Content

Retrieved from "https://wiki.idesg.org/index.php?title=February_5,_2015_Meeting_Page&oldid=2174"