06 May 2022


bruce_bailey, mbgower, MichaelC, Rachael, Sheri, SuzanneTaylor

Meeting minutes

Rachal: As before, we plan for breakout
… but attendance is light

JF: We seem to be talking at cross purposes...
… very different meanings for "protocols"
… evaluation protocols versus production protocols or production protocols

Rachael: We do have different visions, so we want to come back to that

JF: both teams trying to solve different problems -- but using "protocols" to mean those two different things

Rachael: we will document those difference and come back to the larger groups...
… previously we had different ideas, but did not split, so it was hard to resolve conflict of meaning

JF: prefer to figure out sooner than latter

Rachael: first group could switch to "procedures" nomenclature

Rachael: We have broken up into two group to document what we mean by protocols.

<Rachael> Goal: What is a protocol (define it), Example or two, What would be documented or captured to prove a protocol, suggested alternate for "protocol"

<Rachael> Two approaches: Points for protocols and Procedures

bruce asks if we have quorum

<Rachael> 1) Points for protocols vs 2) Procedures

<SuzanneTaylor> 1

bruce feels that points for protocols was making pretty good progress as compared to proceedures sub group

JF: Points for protocols is giving points / scoring for promise

Racheal: So might points for protocols only be that promisary statement?

Mike Gower: Is that it? Don't you have to have some evaluation against meeting that promise?

JF: Well, are we going to split up, or all talk about procedures?

Rachael: If points-for-protocols groups feels like they have answered my questions, lets take a look.

JF: Yes we have working definition with examples.

Rachael: I heard statement that you have documented comittment, can that be done?

<jeanne> Points for Protocols

JF: I cannot, but group might be able to get at a consensus
… Plain Language is an example, cite legal obligation and commitment...
… Plain Language is contextual, so what is plain language for scientist is different than students
… plain language gives 8 factors for evaluation

Rachael: I feel like current doc is not providing all we looking for with a sub group concensus statement

Mike Gower: You said you didn't have the right questions? What are the right questions?

JF: The idea of this sort of protocol is getting the expectation in front of the content creators.

<JF> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/edit

Racheal leaning toward split up.

<mbgower> JF, I heard: how can mechanisms be used to prove success? How do we see a statement being used in this?

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to review the Points for Protocols document

Jeanne I was looking at point-for-protocols group, and I don't feel like what JF has been saying is really in this group.

Sheri: I heard JF talk about proof points and I would like points for protocols to have some alignment with that

Sheri: Is moving working in progress, hope to have github version very soon

Sheri talked about Maturity Model and capturing that and reflected in working doc

<Rachael> Maturity model link (access coming soon) 1Y5EO6zkOMrbyePw5-Crq8ojmhn9OCTRQ6TlgB0cE6YE/edit?pli=1#

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y5EO6zkOMrbyePw5-Crq8ojmhn9OCTRQ6TlgB0cE6YE/edit?pli=1#

MG: Please add the question you think you should be asked to your doc.

MG: Dont necessarily even need to answer.

Group Splits Up

exit to breakout rooms

Joining back up.

Rachael: we will just report back in

<SuzanneTaylor> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/edit#

<Rachael> Bruce: We made some progress.

Bruce: We makde some progress with four item list towards bottom

<SuzanneTaylor> this is probably a better link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W_5H0MCoKzGaD9XCxgzdqZ-1TiVCXHVipE_vNnG2DOQ/edit?usp=sharing

<Rachael> ...4 item list at the bottom of the document.

Bruce: new notes at the bottom

sub group feels more aligne with points for protocol than we did at top of call

Rachael reporting back from points:

<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/edit#heading=h.j4ltx2ts9h2x

documented a couple examples, worked on definition

Rachael reads from google doc

<jeanne> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UgoMz3OPyoEVLbU4uCU5F5K6aEM7E1rii6oCaWqQy50/

JF: we provided some example, question as to where does protocol come from ?
… we think WG should validate protocols as being sufficient or not

Rachael: I agree that points-to-protocol seems close to complete enough
… not sure we need to meet next week

MC: agree that we need a little more time and are making good progresss

Rachael: I will propose something to list for next meeting

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 185 (Thu Dec 2 18:51:55 2021 UTC).


Succeeded: s/How do you/How do we

Maybe present: Bruce, JF, MC, MG, Rachal, Racheal