Was going to attend to try and understand more about the Openactive stuff.
But its not in my diary.
If it is going ahead, can I have a link please?
@Julz I think the meeting reference is more of an organisational one, but Greg might comment.
Iāll be away for the next week but happy to have a one-to-one on the relationship between OpenActive and Open Referal UK any time after that. @Ian-DigitalGaps and/or @andrew-newman might chip in (probably best in this thread). In the meantime, Iāve dug up this short document on a planned OA/ORUK use case MBT10001 - Points for an OpenActive / Open Referral UK use case which might be of interest.
I think the international group hopes to have a meeting on aggregators (aka federation tools) - see here. It would be good for you to join that if/when it is firmed up.
1 Like
Ta Mike, will keep pushing from our end to help make things work together.
This is mostly over my head but seems were are getting closer.
@Julz @MikeThacker-iStandUK Iād be happy to join a call to discuss ORUK and OpenActive 
@bloom I included OR/OA as an agenda item due the amount of related activity across the forum and to see if there weāre emergent discussions to be had; rather than to discuss anything specific.
Same goes for taxonomies really.
Judging by comments, I donāt think we have anything concrete to discuss as a group and as lines of communication are open via the threads leaving it until June makes sense to me.
Iām happy either way, but will not amend the invite until I hear back from you.
I will plan to join during the time, even if just for a quick checkin with whomever drops by.
We could discuss plans for a show-and-tell about federation / aggregation tactics
1 Like
Hi folks ā looking forward to our standing technical meetup on June 12th. (if youād like to attend but donāt have it on your calendar, let me know and I will send an invite.)
Danās out of office, so Iāll share a link to our notes and draft agenda here.
Here below is what it seems like we have to discuss ā feel free to suggest additional topics!
Draft Agenda:
- Technical Committee: ready to get in formation?
- Charter development
- Other?
- 3.1 backlog review
- Schedule table issue
- Survey review:
- Initial feedback
- Content check
- Additional outreach
- Should we have a summit this year?
- Any other updates
Hi all,
Hereās the video and transcript from our meeting last week (12th June) then see below for a summary of discussion points and follow-up actions.
Key discussion points
Committee Formation:
- Membership to start with 5 (Devin, Kate, Sarah, Skyler, Mike). Ideally weād get 2 more with the aim of adding diversity going forward.
- Charter development is the responsibility of the committee but Greg happy to support.
- Charter format (brainstorm):
- Purpose & Values
- Member roles & Primary responsibilities (to inc. advising on tooling)
- Joining & Leaving process
- Setting priorities
- Decision-making process
- Dissolution.
- Devin to take the lead on charter development on behalf of the committee.
3.1 Backlog Review:
- Matt walked through what was intended to be a very informal summary doc created in response to feedback regarding the difficulty people we weāre having parsing meaning from the github issues.
- The doc being restricted was an oversight and was not intended to be kept from view as demonstrated by this post into the public forum. All agree on openness and creating opportunities for contribution from the broader community throughout.
- We discussed how the summary doc fits in with the agreed process and reviewed the flowchart.
- It was agreed that Github would be used for formal spec development and G-Doc for narrative summaries.
- There was a request for timescales
- Skyler and Kate emphasized the importance of the schedule table issue and careful consideration of referrals. There was agreement on setting up a seperate working group to pull together the proposal for this.
Community Survey:
- Additional outreach now required to get responses from the broader community.
Summit Discussion:
- Consensus to wait until 2025 for a summit.
- Some expressed a preference for short, subject-specific deep-dive meetings.
- Discussed the need for distinguishing between HSDS and Open Referral needs/audiences.
- @bloom I think we should review the takeaways from last years summit as we start to think about the next one.
Communications:
- @klambacher fed back on her difficulty keeping up with forum as someone that steps in and out and is not able to engage in the dynamic, ongoing communication that the forum lends itself to.
Actions:
- Devin: Lead the charter development on behalf of the committee.
- Committee & @bloom: Think about how best to recruit 2 additional members going forward to enhance diversity.
Upgrade to 3.1:
- @Dan-ODS: Ensure the summary documents (and all future dosc) are open and accessible.
- ODS: Use GitHub for formal spec development and G-Doc for narrative summaries.
- @skyleryoung @mrshll @klambacher? : Set up a separate working group to develop the schedule table proposal.
Community Survey:
- All: Share the survey with relevant people in their networks.
Summit
- @bloom Consider short, subject-specific deep-dive meetings within or instead of a 2025 summit.
@bloom Consider reviewing takeaways from last yearās summit to inform planning for the next one.
Communications:
- @Dan-ODS to consider how we can communicate in a way that means people get the information they need based on their level of engagement.
1 Like
Follow-up response to this as we did not really respond to request for this in the meeting itself:
The formation of committee and refinements to the process (which ODS are talking to @devin separately next week) will impact on how quickly we can get to the actual work. That said, our current contract comes to an end at the end of September so weād be keen to get 3.1 released by then (at the latest).
@MikeThacker-iStandUK @skyleryoung tagging you specifically as you expressed a need to move things forward (or atleast have an idea of timescales so expectations can be managed) based on your specific circumstances.
Follow-up response to this as we did not really respond to request for this in the meeting itself:
The formation of committee and refinements to the process (which ODS are talking to @devin separately next week) will impact on how quickly we can get to the actual work. That said, our current contract comes to an end at the end of September so weād be keen to get 3.1 released by then (at the latest).
@skyleryoung Matt will of course be keen to be a part of this. @klambacher I suggested you based on the relevant experience you shared in the meeting (but also aware youāre super busy - hence the ? after your name).
As an example of what this working group will be aiming for see what @mrshll has drafted using our proposal template for Adding Service Area to Service At Location (@skyleryoung feedback welcome on this as this was on of your requests)
Dan
@devin With this in mind, do you see any utility in adding these summaries to the indivudual github issues - 2024-05-09 Summaries of Proposed Issues for 3.1 - Google Docs?
Hi all,
Apologies for the very last minute agenda for tomorrow meeting that both Matt and I are unfortunately unable to attend.
Iāve added a bunch of comments in my absence.
Agenda:
- Review of DRAFT Charter: HSDS Technical Committee
- Update on changes to the Revision Process Flowchart following Matt, Dan and Devinās catchup 2024-03-02 HSDS Revision Process
- Acknowledgement that the process weāve followed for 3.1 differs to the above process and is not how weād expect 3.2.
- Summary/request/comments from ODS in Matt and Danās absence:
- For version 3.1, ODS had already pre-curated issues weāve perceived as important and in-demand.
- It would be good to double-check the committee is happy to proceed with our curated list?
- We did cover this to some extent at the last meeting where we went through the summaries for proposed issues but I think we ended up implicitly talking about the above.
- Going forward, weāll involve the technical committee more in summarizing and prioritizing GitHub issues, with the format of engagement to be decided by the committee.
- Whilst it could be an option to walk back some steps and do this for 3.1, our preference based on Matt going back on paternity leave for #6 months mid-october would be to avoid delays to make best use of the two months we have left with Matt.
- Summary/request/comments from ODS in Matt and Danās absence:
- Community Survey Updates?
- From Dan:
- No response from TPXimpact - Perhaps Mike could nudge?
- Have asked Rob (ODS) and David (former ODS) to complete.
- From Dan:
- Working towards more effective comms:
- From Dan:
- It would be good to clarify how/if Greg and Mikeās responses to my email align?
- Iām also unsure how this discord group is used in practice? Its not clear to me from this link? Technical committee - Open Referral community forum
- From Dan:
Thanks for joining today, folks.
Notes are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SYmsSa_U8uQKZW0zhEq8H6CNttNeWPqP7BAV0HDJa2o/edit#heading=h.aonfi8yijq7u
Summary of action items here:
Actions:
-
Greg Bloom to synthesize notes on the charter into a revised draft.
-
GB to develop language for problem-definition norms in issue generation
-
Committee members to review ODCS points on v3.1 process
-
Committee members to suggest outreach targets for community survey.
-
Put taxonomy topic on future agenda.
Hi all,
Apologies this is very last minute but hereās the proposed agenda for tomorrow. Further suggestions welcome - as always.
Main items
AOBās (depending on attendance/appetite/time)
- Taxonomy
- UK project update
- Gregās UK visit
Thanks,
Dan
1 Like
I added some comments on our Vacancy / Capacity structure at Capacity to take referrals Ā· Issue #221 Ā· openreferral/specification Ā· GitHub
2 Likes
Hi all,
Sorry I missed the call this week.
Hereās a link to the notes, video and transcription.
Key Takeaways
- Several draft proposals for HSDS 3.1 were reviewed, with additional input gathered on location types (redacted, mobile) and capacity management
- The technical committee charter was iteratively updated based on member feedback
- UK HSDS tooling development was highlighted as an area for the committee to monitor and provide input
HSDS 3.1 Proposals
- Matt Marshall presented draft proposals across various 3.1 issues, seeking committee review/involvement
- Discussion on āredactedā location type for privacy, with nuances around field vs record redaction
- āMobileā location type proposed to indicate services delivered via mobile unit
- Capacity management remains a complex issue, may require flexible approach given varying needs
Technical Committee Charter
- Statements added around meeting openness, decision-making process, membership terms
- Process outlined for adding new members (nomination > committee decision > probationary period)
- Need to further specify provisions for removing members if required
- Subcommittees allowed but canāt make formal decisions without full committee approval
UK HSDS Tooling Development
- Funded work underway in UK to develop HSDS validator tool
- Outputs could potentially serve as validator for entire initiative
- Committee will have opportunity to shape process and provide feedback
Agreed actions:
- MM forum post summarising what I presented at the meeting, with links for those who werenāt there.
- Iteration on the Location Type of āRedactedā proposal to clarify that we are also suggesting that we add guidance to the docs explaining implications and how to use it.
- GB making updates in the charter, for review and approval next week.
- Skyler to work with Matt and be in touch with Rob Redpath about the schedule / events issue.
- Kate to share example of capacity schema with Matt, and Skyler to ask WellSky for their example schema.
- GB will be in UK for next meeting, we can review the underway development of the UK validator.
Update on things I know have been actioned since the meeting:
- MM forum post summarising what I presented at the meeting, with links for those who werenāt there.
Done. See - Overview of the upcoming HSDS 3.1
- Iteration on the Location Type of āRedactedā proposal to clarify that we are also suggesting that we add guidance to the docs explaining implications and how to use it.
Done. See - PROPOSAL: Add a Location Type of Redacted - Google Docs
- Kate to share example of capacity schema with Matt, and Skyler to ask WellSky for their example schema.
Done. See - Capacity to take referrals Ā· Issue #221 Ā· openreferral/specification Ā· GitHub
Hi all,
Does anyone have suggestions/request with regards to agenda items for next Wednesday meeting?
Dan
I can give an update on UK local government work, including upgraded Validator & Dashboard and planned meeting.
1 Like