Zoom Logo

Ecosystem Foundry WG / Trust over IP Foundation - Shared screen with speaker view
Drummond Reed
25:21
Are we recording?
Dan Gisolfi
25:27
yes
sankarshan
25:28
Yes.
Drummond Reed
25:32
thanks
Steve Magennis
26:42
Hey Lucy!
Jim StClair
26:53
who is AyanWorks represented by?
Lucy Yang
27:26
Hi Steve and everyone!
Drummond Reed
28:09
Hi Lucy
Steve Magennis
32:33
great direction for use cases - highly relevant today
Jim StClair
34:16
i still haven't submitted yet but will over the weekend
Lucy Yang
36:37
https://www.covidcreds.com/ CCI's website for more information about the initiative
Drummond Reed
43:43
@Karl, can you post a link to this Google Slides presentation?
Drummond Reed
53:05
Excellent summary
ONAP Meeting 2
53:26
+1
sankarshan
55:08
To Dan’s query about whether there are gaps - I think we’d need to see a variety in use cases to arrive at the specifics of iterative improvement.
Jim StClair
55:32
+1!
Nicky Hickman
55:59
would add liabilities as is vs to be in the risk discussion
Jim StClair
01:00:53
Nicky, that's a great one for healthcare too
Will Groah
01:01:41
Given we are in the context of an ecosystem, should there be a separate step/stage for the at least initial “Funding”? Seems we need a specific step to bridge from the non-economic to the economic. When the “ToIP Ecosystem” formed, this was a key step (member funding through the lean/agile JDF standup).
Scott Whitmire
01:02:30
Funding should be part of Implement.
Nicky Hickman
01:02:51
For sure @ Jim, really important for flows of liability, professional insurance etc
Kalyan Kulkarni
01:02:53
I think funding need not be an independent phase but be part of any
Dan Gisolfi
01:03:31
I think the we should schedule case review mtgs between WG mtgs b/c waiting 2wks is not productive.
Steve Magennis
01:04:39
@Will, interesting perspective setting up the ground rules for things like who is paying for what, who expects to make a profit etc. is very relevant to forming an ecosystem. Not sure how much detail falls into internal business model vs. ecosystem participation information
Will Groah
01:04:52
@scott i can see funding part of implement. thanks.
Will Groah
01:06:45
Can also see possibly under Create or separate/new as weel
Scott Whitmire
01:09:04
@Will, Create would include the planning for funding, building the revenue model and that sort. It will also be part of Operate as ecosystem members join and leave the ecosystem.
Will Groah
01:11:52
@Steve Yes, very structured if ecosystem spawned as a new Series project non-profit legal entity under JDF (e.g. Steering, Associate, Contributor) but I think its part of this WG charter to help define a framework/template for consortia in for profit situations.
Will Groah
01:12:12
@scott - yes. agreed
nicholas see
01:12:22
@eric: it wld be helpful to you if u cld consider defining several use-cases becos I get a sense that your entire "value chain" comprises of several usecases
sankarshan
01:14:07
Doing case reviews between meetings is a good plan.
Will Groah
01:14:27
@Dan’s comment on frequency of use cases. +1
Steve Magennis
01:15:01
@Will, agree, I am just thinking out loud about where a framework ends and proprietary business information begins. For example a credit card ecosystem will publish access rates, but won't talk about their internal profit margins even though that (in a smaller context) might be relevant to the sustainability of an ecosystem
Scott Whitmire
01:16:01
Yes, it does make sense.
Steve Magennis
01:16:25
+1
Jim StClair
01:16:38
@scott would love to discuss your use case before I submit mine :)
Scott Whitmire
01:17:20
@Jim, sure. Let’s connect on Slack.
Jim StClair
01:17:29
+1
sankarshan
01:21:37
Thank you all. Solid set of conversations today!