This TF schedules meetings as needed. Each meeting will be announced on the GSWG mailing list and the #governance-architecture-tf Slack channel.

The meetings (and Zoom links) are available on the ToIP meeting calendar:
https://zoom-lfx.platform.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/ToIP?view=month

Zoom Meeting Links / Recordings

Video and Transcript: Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing, Webinars, Screen Sharing

Meeting starts 5 minutes in (seems the normal pattern)

Attendees

@John Phillips

@Neil Thomson

@sankarshan

@Scott Perry

@Makki Elfatih

…

Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)

Summary of meeting:

Summary of meeting generated by NotebookLM from the transcript and chat messages…

Here's a summary of the Governance Architecture Task Force meeting:

The meeting began with John Phillips (Sezoo) welcoming attendees and reminding them of the antitrust policy. He confirmed Makki Elfatih (Hkdolts) was a registered member. John then introduced the leaders involved in developing the Meta Model for governance and other content: Scott, Neil, and Sankesh. The purpose of the task force is to develop tools and guidance for implementing governance in trust over IP ecosystems.

John Phillips proposed revisiting the charter and deliverables, taking inspiration from a recent steering committee meeting, to give Makki an overview of their ongoing work. He shared his screen, showing the meeting notes page and the governance architecture task force charter page on the Trust over IP Wiki. This page reflects on previous generations of the task force and is a work in progress.

A key discussion point was the deliverables of the task force. John proposed that when describing use cases, they should consider which deliverables the use case helps to understand or elaborate. He noted that Neil Thomson (QueryVision) had been working on use cases. Neil confirmed this intent. John also mentioned he had slightly changed the text of some deliverables for clarity and that these were intended to be white papers. He highlighted a realization from the last meeting: the need to consider the use cases when elaborating on these papers.

John proposed elaborating use cases on a dedicated page to understand their current work and the link to deliverables. He suggested a structure for use cases: preamble with naming suggestions and reference to deliverables, followed by the existing three use cases from Neil.

Neil walked through the first use case, focusing on how an issuer in one ecosystem knows how to trust a holder applying for a credential, especially across different trust paths and trust registries. John Phillips suggested referencing prior work or presentations within the use case descriptions. They also discussed the identifiers used in Neil's examples, with Neil clarifying it was a "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" reference. John proposed using "Alice and Bob" as generic actors, but Neil pointed out that Bob is not typically an issuer.

John Phillips suggested framing use cases as mini-plays with an introduction of actors, their background, and the interaction. Neil agreed, adding the idea of setting the scene or context. Scott Perry (Digital Governance Institute) supported this approach.

However, Scott raised a concern that the current use cases might not be valuable because broader problems haven't been solved, specifically the governance over trust registries. He suggested this should be a focus for the next generation of the architecture group. John agreed this was valuable and proposed polishing the existing use cases, noting that the extractions and preconditions identified would highlight what deliverables are needed.

Scott elaborated on the first use case, questioning the requirements for a holder in one ecosystem to get a credential from an issuer in another without being a member of that second ecosystem. Neil acknowledged this as a potential "chicken and egg" situation, where exploring the use case helps identify missing elements . John summarized the agreed structure for use cases: scene setting, interaction description, and implications/preconditions.

Scott then indicated his hesitation with a purely use-case-driven process , suggesting his focus was on broader missing elements in the governance Meta Model . John clarified that the use cases are supportive, helping to identify what needs to be done and substantiate the need for certain deliverables .

Scott introduced two key areas he believes the group should address: governance over trust registries and the cradle-to-grave management process for a governance or conformance program . He mentioned his work with C2PA in implementing a conformance program using the Trust over IP Meta Model, highlighting the lack of guidance on the lifecycle management of such programs . He shared a link to a white paper he and Matthew are jointly issuing on trust registries. This paper introduces the idea of trust registries from a governance standpoint and highlights the need to define trust registry governance requirements, including authority statements .

John Phillips raised a question about the licensing of Scott and Matthew's white paper, noting the "all rights reserved" at the bottom. Scott acknowledged this needs clarification with Matthew, as they want some protection while also recognizing the use of Trust over IP concepts .

John Phillips mentioned his action from the last meeting to share his work with the New South Wales government (Divc) in an anonymized form to address concerns. He noted that this work highlighted the need for considering lifecycles at various levels within ecosystems.

Sankarshan mukhopadhyay (Dhiway Networks Private Limited) reminded the group of the fundamental roles (issuer, holder, verifier) and models (within/across ecosystems) in governance architecture and the goal of making these processes efficient, secure, and scalable . He suggested they might be "digging too deep right away" without setting a clear context .

John Phillips reiterated that the charter and deliverables can be changed through consensus . Makki Elfatih suggested driving their work from clear problem statements .

John Phillips proposed a Kanban-like approach to manage their work, with a backlog, in-progress items, review, and done sections, to have a more dynamic way to address priorities .

Sankarshan asked to frame Scott's two proposed areas as potential deliverables . Scott described the two (and later a third) areas: creating a complete lifecycle from intake to trust registry record for a governance conformance program, defining the governance requirements of a trust registry (including format of records), and defining the structure of authority statements from a governance framework to a trust registry . These were added as draft topics.

Sankarshan saw a link between these new items and the original deliverable of "enhancing trustworthy interactions between independent ecosystems" . John proposed restructuring the deliverables list to show topics leading to specific deliverables, suggesting that the new items support the original broader topics. Scott viewed the original four items more as objectives .

Agreed Actions:

• John Phillips will tidy up the charter page.

• Neil, John, and others will collaborate on updating the use cases page following the suggested structure.

• The group will consider the three new draft deliverables proposed by Scott Perry.

• John Phillips will look at implementing a Kanban-like approach for managing the task force's work and making it public.

• John Phillips will provide an updated response to Scott Perry's form based on the meeting's discussion .

• John Phillips will discuss the licensing of Scott Perry's white paper with Matthew to find a resolution.

• John Phillips will prepare his anonymized work with the New South Wales government (Divc) for sharing with the group.

• John Phillips will update the meeting minutes page with a sanitized transcript .

• John Phillips will work on better formatting the lists on the charter page .

• John Phillips will aim to recognize who is working on and leading specific deliverables to ensure ownership .

The meeting concluded with a discussion about the value of use cases in illustrating the "how" and their potential reuse . Neil Thomson had to leave early.

Precious Actions Agreed:

Previously…

• John Phillips agreed to take action to get confirmation about the possibility of releasing the NSW governance framework document publicly. [DONE - will be made a general review not specific to the client]

• John Phillips will add a section to the current document or create a new Wiki page to collect example use cases relevant to the four deliverables outlined in the charter. This page will welcome contributions and edits from the group. The use cases will include a note on which of the four deliverables they address to ensure coverage. [DONE]

Chat notes

00:03:33 John Phillips (Sezoo): https://openprofile.dev/my-meetings
00:03:59 sankarshan mukhopadhyay (Dhiway Networks Private Limited): Reacted to "https://openprofile.…" with 💯
00:08:03 Neil Thomson (QueryVision): Reacted to "https://openprofile...." with 💯
00:32:52 Scott Perry (Digital Governance Institute): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sm2CPr0e385brCVB0KCnezHJlidIUOtBvXg79cIUMnM/edit?usp=sharing
01:00:35 Neil Thomson (QueryVision): Looks fine. Have to drop..