...

• What is the role of working groups given the ongoing maturation of projects in HL?
  • Prescriptive: the working groups prescribe direction for projects
  • Descriptive: working groups generalize what is already being done in the projects
  • Gap analysis: identify "what's missing" from the current projects
  • Integration analysis: identify "common components" that could be extracted
  • Emerging trends-vision: Provide a platform for "vision" of what is out there in the field. New ideas from members. Reports from influential conferences/meetings
  • Platform for launch: we had Indy/Aries launched from ID WG, Caliper from PSWG 
• How can working groups provide appropriate "recompense" for participation? Influence, notoriety, creativity, business value?
• How else can we motivate (or at least reduce the barrier) to participation?
• What is the process for report outs? Historically, the white paper, architecture, and performance working groups completed documents that were brought to the TSC for final review and approval. This seems like a reasonable model and should be standardized.

Notes

Learning materials working group provides a very good example of the challenges with the current working group structure. Those participating in the working group often sit "outside" of the projects themselves. As a result, participation (specifically participation from the projects) is very difficult. 

There is a fairly strong sense that the working groups should be focused on the "glue" between projects.