Standing Technical Meetups

[Dan-ODS]

Thread for following up on Standing Technical Meetups.

[Dan-ODS]

Standing Technical Meetup - 2023-10-10T23:00:00Z

Here’s a link to the running notes doc and recording of the Standing Technical Meetup - 11th October 23.

Below you can find a summary of the discussion points and actions arising:

Summit Takeaways:

• There was an appreciation for the opportunity to learn more about Sklers work on Silobuster
• The mix of of knowledge amongst those at the summit was discussed.
• Kate highlighted that those newer to the standard seemed to encountering issues and grappling with the questions already faced by experienced members of the community.

Actions:

• Arrange a dedication Silobuster session (perhaps a presentation and Q&A) on this at a future technical meetup.
• Consider how best to cater to newbies and old hands at future summits.
• Consider whether we are adequately documenting and/or communicating the knowledge and experience of the technical community in way that could prevent those new to the standard from unnecessarily covering the same ground.

Survey of the technical community

• It was agreed that it would be a good idea to build on previous work [mapping tooling requirements]( build on previous work undertaken to map out what Open Referral Tools - Google Sheets) by engaging with the wider technical community to understand what tools they would most benefit from.

Action:

• Devin to lead on pulling together a survey.

Validator:

• The group agreed on the need for Validation tooling sooner rather than later and went on discuss
  different approaches; service vs downloadable tool vs integratable library the use of YML and licensing. It was agree that when a spec is finalised, we should put out a request for proposals to the broader community.

Actions:

• Greg to will post in the forum asking for more input on Mike’s validator proposal in order to encourage further input with an emphasis on user stories.
• Start drafting a plan re the validator by the next meeting - plan to share at the next meeting

Taxonomies:

• We discussed the potential for code lists, mapping taxonomies. Gregg mentioned that AIRS are undertaking a landscape analysis.

Action:

• Greg to share the work AIRS are doing.

UK update:

• Mike bought attention to the forum thread on the work TPX Impact are doing
• Gave an overview of the key aims of the project which is to review the business case and develop a strategy for mass uptake (should the business case support this).
• Updated on the fortnightly show and tells Sign-up for those here
• Greg recommended as a member of an advisory board. Greg could help steer UK/Global alignment.This could potentially lead to funding for validator but not in the near term.

Update on FHIR work -

• Greg gave a quick update on the FHIR work which aims to bring HSDS into the healthcare space. SeeForum Post / Blog Post.

Documentation Review
strong text

• A further request for feedback on the proposed updates to documentation was request **

Github Project board:

• Dan gave an overview of the proposed Technical Tasks and Priorities**
• Generally well received. Greg requested a switch to three status’ - Backlog, Up-next, In-progress.

Actions:

• Dan to consider feedback and give further thought to the use of Github to manage non-technical tasks (which the only thing preventing adoption)

Skyler - 211 Profile:

• Looking to go live within the next 2 weeks
• Explained the issue the phone table issue he is facing We need a normalized url table in the pattern of the phone table

Action:

• Dan to setup call between to Skyler, Matt and potentially David to discuss.
• Mike to ask Dom in the meantime.

Skyler’s other Forum Posts:

Reminder to the group re forum post from Skyler:

• Challenges with the schedule table for organizations in the USA -
• How do you indicate the main or primary phone number for a resource?

Forum Post:

• Highlighted A few clarifications forum post. Mike informed he had has responded.

Thanks,

Dan

[bloom]

Hi folks – I’ve been traveling for weeks and only just now getting back into gear, so I’m a bit late on preparation for tomorrow’s standing technical meeting. We have notes here, with potential agenda items carried forward from last time that i’m also pasting below.

Prospective agenda items:
Agenda:

• Silobuster session
• Validator
• Community Survey (Tooling Requirements/Dev Stacks)
• Documentation Review
• Github Project Board

I suspect @skyleryoung might need some more time to prep a SiloBuster session, and we’d probably want to put in some effort to promote it – so maybe that’s not a topic for tomorrow (other than perhaps planning for it)?

I haven’t received more input on the Validator so maybe we can consider ways to elicit such input, including the survey that @devin proposed?

And eager to review the slate of documentation changes.

What else should we address? Let us know!
greg

[Dan-ODS]

I’ve added the following:

• 211 Profile update inc schedule table issues

• • Skyler’s other forum posts on:
  • We need a normalized url table in the pattern of the phone table
  • How do you indicate the main or primary phone number for a resource?

[bloom]

Hi folks – looking forward to reconnect on Wednesday, for our last technical meetup of the year. We have a sketched out draft agenda in the notes here.

What do you want to make sure we talk about?

~greg

[bloom]

Hi folks - happy new year! I hope you had restful holidays. Looking forward to our first standing technical meeting of 2024 next week.

I’m eager to hear your recommendations for agenda items. Here’s a starter list of topics I think we might want to work from:

• Documentation review – checking out how our project + product documentation is changing.
• Survey revision and promotion plan – Devin has drafted this questionnaire to elicit input from the community and it might be just about ready?
• Proposed governance model – We want to consider at least two options for structuring our work together, I’ll have brief write-ups of what we’ve discussed so far to share.
• • Challenges with the schedule table for organizations in the USA - have we consulted with Dr Raznick about this?
• Other issues…?

Let me know what you think we should focus on!

[Dan-ODS]

Hi all,

Please find a summary of discussion points sand actions arising from the Standing Technical Meet-up that took place on the 10th of January.

Greg’s role at Inform USA.

• Greg updated us on his new position at Inform USA. More info - here

Documentation Review (Product vs Project Documentation).

• Greg updated on his work to separate Project documentation from Product documentation.
• We discussed how the project documentation moved over from the Products documentation is currently could be presented on the website and ways to potentially improve it inc. a suggestion to turn the About page into a landing page for all project documentation.

Actions:

• @bloom to consider the suggestion
• @bloom to make capitalization of the about menu options consistent.

Community Survey.

• Devin talked through the Open Referral Community Survey he is currently working on which he suggested could be something we do on a regular basis to ensure we’re keeping up with the needs of the community.
• The Tooling section needs attention which led to a discussion and review of Tools Sheet which the survey should be informed by.

Actions:

• ODS (@Dan-ODS) to update the Tooling Spreadsheet
• @Dan-ODS to plan time at the meetup to further review the sheet

Governance Model

• Greg and Devin updated on some work they’ve been doing to map alternative governance models which could involve a more formalised technical committee responsible for directing the maintenance and development of the HSDS standard.
• There was a discussion about the remit and potential membership of the committee.

Actions:

• @bloom and @devin to finalise the proposal and share in the forum.

Github Repo Issues Review.

• Dan updated on ODSC’s issues review and made people aware of the following docs that document the process and actions taken:
• Issues review: (Archived) API specification repo
• Issues review: Specification repo

Action:

• @Dan-ODS to establish a process by which the technical community can effectively engage with the issues list through use of the Technical Tasks and Priorities Project Board

Placement of links to existing profiles in the docs.

• Dan shared changes made to using profuels section of the docs based on feedback from Mike and Skyler which we’re well received.

Action: ODS to merge the branch used to draft the change.

Scheduling issue.

• Updated on the meeting scheduled between Matt and Syler. Request to open up to others

Action:

• @Dan-ODS to post to the forum re the opportunity to join the call.

[Dan-ODS]

@Dan-ODS

ODS (@Dan-ODS) to update the Tooling Spreadsheet

@mrshll and I have reviewed and updated the sheet to bring it in line with recent developments (mainly our work on profiles and Mikes scoping of validation tooling)

What we’ve done:

• Created a drop-down status column (hopefully the status’ make sense - let me know if not).
• Allocated ‘Done’ status’ to all of the profile related tools.
• Allocated a ‘scoping’ status to the tools Mike has scoped out here
• Highlighted the validation tools Mike has scoped (Key at the bottom of the sheet)
• Added a ‘Notes/Comments’ and ‘Questions’ column on the far right to support engagement. I get notified of any changes so will follow-up any activity in those columns.
• Added a ‘Difficulty’ column.

Thanks,

Dan

[Dan-ODS]

@Dan-ODS

@Dan-ODS to post to the forum re the opportunity to join the call.

See - Challenges with the `schedule` table for organizations in the USA - #9 by mrshll for latest development on this.

[Dan-ODS]

@Dan-ODS

Action: ODS to merge the branch used to draft the change.

This has been merged. See - Using Profiles — Open Referral Data Specifications 3.0.1 documentation

[devin]

Looks great Dan. Thanks.

I reordered the columns for clarity and sorted so the Done items are at the bottom.

I’ll start a new Topic to organize feedback on the sheet and try to ping people to get feedback. Maybe another call will be needed as well. We’ll see.

Thanks again for pushing this forward.

[Dan-ODS]

Hi all,

Hope you’re well.

Here is the proposed agenda for next Wednesdays meeting:

Agenda:

• Revising Open Referral Community Survey

  • Collective review of Open Referral Tools ongoing – see Forum thread
  • Separate meeting proposed for this. Do we need it or can we do it here?
  • See specific Question regarding API richness checker

• Reviewing HSDS Governance proposals:

  • Organizational: Proposed “working group” governance model
  • Technical: Upgrades, updates and versioning (branch for review)

• Reviewing [Technical Task and Priorities Github Project Board](Technical Tasks and Priorities · GitHub)

  • Backlog (44 issues) includes tasks that:
    • We don’t think are a priority over the next 6-12 months
    • Are not in high demand within the community (as far as we’re aware).
  • Proposed (19 issues) includes tasks that:
    • We think are a priority over the next 6-12 months
    • Are in demand within the community
    • Are quick, straightforward and relevant enough to just get done.
  • Of course, these are soft proposals to give the technical community something that is easy to engage with.
  • What next? work towards agreement on 3.1 MINOR upgrade. Agreed issues can then be allocated to 3.1 milestone.
  • We can follow the process laid out in the Proposed Revision Process #draft (discussed above)

• Update on the schedule table issue

  • Issue with proposed solution created by Matt following his call with Skyler
  • Forum thread

• Documentation update: Replacing “non-normative” with “informative” in the docs

  • Do we have consensus regarding this change within the docs?

Forum Discussions:

Forum Thread	Github Issue	Notes/Actions
How do you indicate the main or primary phone number for a resource?	#476
Handling confidential addresses in HSDS 3.0	#166
Required components of a 211 Application Profile for HSDS	-
We need a normalized url table in the pattern of the phone table	#476
A use case for service_area attached to service_at_location	-

Suggestions / Amendments welcome.

Thanks,

Dan

[Dan-ODS]

Hi all,

We’d appreciate it if the following could be reviewed ahead of the meeting where possible:

• Open Referral Tools (there are columns for comments and questions)

• Proposed “working group” governance model (feel free to leave comments)

• Proposed versioning and upgrade process (comments can be made in this doc)

Thanks,

Dan

[bloom]

Thanks to the folks who joined us yesterday. Notes are here.

Key takeaways:

• Everyone is encouraged to review the Github project board which captures and sorts all of our open issues into a backlog and a set of proposed items for consideration in Version 3.1. In the months ahead, we’ll be reviewing and revising these lists based on your input.

• @devin and I will review and affirm the descriptions in the Tools spreadsheet, then he will update the Survey text and then we can circulate that for feedback.

• I’ll consolidate Devin’s committee governance proposal with @mrshll’s version control proposal into one document for review.

• Seems like we have a near-term path forward on the Schedule table issue that satisfies @skyleryoung vis-a-vis the 2-1-1 network. And also potentially a proposal for longer-term upgrade that can be added to the backlog. Follow the thread.

• I have voiced my dislike of the term “non-normative” for guidance material that is not formally part of the standard – and I proposed “informative” as an alternative – but the developers in this conversation seem comfortable with “non-normative,” and I recognize that the documentation is for developers not English majors. I’d like to hear whether others have an opinion about this, but for now I expect we can keep it and just hone our explanation of what we mean by the phrase “non-normative” to make it clear that it means “this is something we do think ought to be done, even though the word we’re using to say that seems to literally mean the exact opposite.”

[Dan-ODS]

Hi all,

Proposed agenda for tomorrow meeting is as follows:

• How we (ODS) plan to work whilst Matt is away on paternity.
• Proposed Governance Model - Chance for feedback and clarifying questions.
• Proposal Template - Introduce and talk through how it could be used in relation to the proposed governance model.
• Technical Task and Priorities Github Project Board: Feedback on ‘Proposed’ items and discuss next steps.
• Community Survey - Update & next steps.
• Exciting ORUK update - Update from Mike.
• Replacing “non-normative” with “informative” in the docs - Reaching a decision.
• Solgitude Profile

Please feel free to suggest further items.

Look forward to catching up.

Dan

[bloom]

Hi folks – I think @Dan-ODS is on leave, so I’ll start the process of forming the agenda for next week’s standing meetup.

I’ve got a section for it here in our docs, and pasting the first version of the agenda below. What else would you want to discuss?

• Acting on proposed Governance Model
  • Approving proposal
  • Forming committee
• Summary of proposed issues for consideration in 3.1
• Moving on the Community Survey
• Others?

thanks!

[Dan-ODS]

Hi all,

The notes from yesterdays meeting along with a link to the video and transcript can be found here.

Summary of discussion points:

• Updates: We had updates from the UK and US ecosystems.

• Governance Model: We discussed the Governance proposal in terms of: 1/ The relationship between the committee the fiscal sponsor; 2/ Management of brand assets; 3/ The risks associated with international projects being tied to US governance law, and; 4/ Potential considerations regarding any tooling be created by projects outside of the fiscal sponsorship agreement.
  Action: @MikeThacker @devin @klambacher @SarahP @skyleryoung Any further questions along these lines are welcome as comments within the proposed Governance Model or on this forum thread.

• Forming a technical committee: We identified some next steps with regards to forming a committee and gave some thought to what gaps we may have in terms of representation.
  Action: @bloom Greg to further consider the invitation/nomination process based on feedback and move towards formalising the proposal.

• 3.1 proposal: @Dan-ODS continues to work on summaries of individual issues proposed for 3.1 as agreed at the last meetup.

• Tooling: We discussed tooling and the potential for the TPX impact project to provision validation tooling that could be proof of concept for the international community.

• Community Survey: We agreed to go ahead and complete the community survey ourselves in the first instance in order to test and feedback before going out to the wider community.
  Actions: @bloom Greg to share the survey with regular attendees. @Dan-ODS to setup a thread to gather feedback.

Many thanks,

Dan

[Dan-ODS]

Proposed agenda for Wednesdays meetup on Wed (8th May) :

• Forming a Committee
  • Forum Post
  • Open Referral – HSDS Technical Committee DRAFT
• Community Survey Feedback
• OR/OA
  • Hello! I’m Kelly Hewitt from Community Action Network
  • Bradford - Open Referral Plan
  • Open Referral links with Open Active
• Taxonomy discussion UK
  • Adoption of local and national taxonomies - particularly in England

Please let me know if there anything you’d like to add.

Dan

[MikeThacker]

@Dan-ODS I’m afraid I must give my apologies for this meeting as I’ll be away for a few days. I’ll be sorry to miss the meeting because several items have much UK relevance. Hence, I’d like to say here:

• the OR / OA issue is no is different from converting from any other standard. It is widely recognised in the UK at Open Active is a sports and wellbeing standard with a different purpose, but relevant data from it can be transformed to the wider Open Referral (UK) standard for merging with other OR (UK) feeds. Hence the issue of a having a good aggregator is far more important. I worry a little when OA is raised that people think we have two standards for the same thing. That is not the case.
• we should not deter people from using Open Referral (UK) by implying everyone must use the same taxonomy. Of course that would be nice, but people can start with local taxonomies that meet their immediate needs. We can later look at either tagging services with terms from other taxonomies (as well) or mapping between terms in aggregators

[bloom]

Can anyone planning to attend the meeting reach out to me?

Since we’re still in the process of promoting the survey, and fielding input for the technical committee’s formation, I’m not sure if we have enough new material on the agenda to make a meeting worthwhile right now. I also wasn’t sure that the threads on OA/OR and taxonomies surfaced any issues we need to address now, so if @MikeThacker is out and not asking for us to address them, we might just call it for now and regroup in June when ready to start forming the committee.

If you have a topic for us to put on the agenda, please let us know!