Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Weekly VC series to update the eduGAIN Constitution to account for changed governance and multiple technical profiles (federation protocols).


Questions and issues raised by the Board:

CommentAction to resolveActionee

Concerning 2.1 „eduGAIN Executive Committee (eCC) there is currently missing a section defining the division of votes in the case of more bodies financially contributing/funding eduGAIN operations.

A proposed text that could be incorporated in the next update could be:

„The EduGAIN Executive Committee comprises representative from organizations that fund eduGAIN operations. As long as GEANT is the only organization funding eduGAIN operations, the role of the eEC is adopted by Geant Board. The Geant Board can execute this task by its own or delegate all or part of it to the Geant CEO.
The eEC is responsible………“

The roles and votes will be defined in the governance document on the website.  It is sensible not to include these in a document that needs voting consensus to change as we expect the voting role to change as the eduGAIN business model evolves. 

Nicole to write governance for Board consideration.


The absence of a web-page describing the role of the board ([eduGAIN-GOV]).This was purposeful - it is the "next step" on the process as for now we are still officially governed by v2 so we can't make live changes until ratification. 

Nicole to write governance for Board consideration.


In 1.3 Terms..a term 'Observer' (used in 2.2 '..non-voting invited observers' is missingObserver is a fairly non-contentious term, I don't think a definition is needed for this.No action required

The use of and term (and role of) 'GEANT' is a bit confusing. It is written: 'GEANT is a membership organisation'
GÉANT is than not used in the document, apart from under trademark.
After reading this document you could conclude that GEANT's only relation to eduGAIN is through trademark...

Again this is fairly purposeful.  With the merger, we have learned that including organisational names in documents beyond the simplest of mentions can cause on-going problems as organisational structures and naming changes.  GÉANT's relationship to eduGAIN is more fully reflected on the website and in other places.No action required
In 2.1 'Technical Profiles' is used while in 1.3 Terms is 'Technology Profiles'.Simple change, easily implemented without the need to draw attention.



Under 4.4: 'affirmative vote of at least two- thirds of Federations from the active voting list' - how is 'active voting list' defined?This is defined in 2.2No action required
Could the composition of the eduGAIN eEC be presented in the [eduGAIN-GOV]?

 Yes, it will be

The composition of the Operations Team is not defined

We don't want to add operational composition to the constitution document because of this changes, we would need to constantly update the document.  I believe the actions of the Ops team are well described and will be further supported by eduGAIN-OP document.No action required

It is difficult through the constitution to identify the "organisations that fund eduGAIN operations" and how to extend if there's a wish for it..

Will be addressed via the governance web page.

Nicole to write governance for Board consideration.


Looking at its core function (ratify decisions by Steering Group) the term "Executive Committee" doesn't look appropriate to me

At the moment, the Executive Committee has a limited role due to the simple way in which eduGAIN is funded (via the project).  Should the business model for eduGAIN change, the role will change significantly.  This is why this term is applied.No action required




Issues / To DoAction?Who?
Have removed the reference to having a metadata registration practice statement.  This needs to be added back in to each Technology Profile with more specific information about how that is handled for each technology / specification  
Current membership acceptance still very much tied to accepting SAML documents.  Do we assess membership using the documents for the first Technology Profile a member registers against?  How do we assess when they start using a new profile?  Do they have to go through a sign up process for each?We've tried to address this in the new section 3 description of the constitutionBrook / Nicole
Process for accepting members in is described at  Do we need to alter / update this? When?  
Still open questions about Central Operational Team and relationship to any teams running trust brokers for specific technologies.Still remains.


Write up an FAQ doc to go alongside the revised Constitution and send out both documents to the SG. Brook
Have a topic item at REFEDSs at Tech Ex on this work? Nicole




  • No labels