Page History

...

Recording

Meeting Minutes

Meeting Minutes (scribed by Megan Ebling- thank you!)

1. Antitrust policy reviewed
2. Review Charter on Wiki
   1. Rururaj:  The last meeting we looked at the data model and it is a very technical construct, we would like to keep this conversation (working group) more business friendly and business centric so, we are going to refer to the data dictionary to get a visual on the relationship.
   2. Dale:  Would like to add into the charter that we are only dealing with property and casualty and the end game is all lines of business that require statistical reporting.
   3. Reviewed bullet points of the charter
1. Draft. Goal:  Set the context of these meetings, working group
3. Working Group Basics: Organization and Voting
   1. (Introductions of the group)
   1. Subcommittee Members:
   1. Dale Harris
   2. Peter Antley
   3. George Bradner
   4. Ryan Blakeney
1. Truman:  Who gets to vote, we need the definition of who’s in the working group that would constitute a quorum.
2. Ruturaj:  With regards to the Chair; we can rotate that so everybody gets to play the chair and contributes and doesn’t just become an overhead for one individual.
3. Daniela:  From the Linux Foundation side, that’s the correct approach.
4. Ruturaj:  We can have a new chair every quarter.
5. George:  Do we have a list of who are the Members of this Working Group now?  Just so, we can get a sense of all the people who are apart of this group?
6. Daniela: I would recommend that we make a call to the list and say, l we would like to create a public right directory of Members.  It’s more appropriate to do this on the public mailing list then to share the list here and now.
7. Dale:  Can we make introductions to everyone in this group now?
8. Daniela:  Is anyone opposed to being listed in the regulatory reporting working group directory?  I will make a call out for any other individuals that might not be on the call today or on previous calls to let us know if they want to be added.
9. Truman: Back to the chair part, who is eligible for a nomination?
10. Dale:  We need a more robust charter to define that role of the Chair.  I would suggest we have a subcommittee to build out the charter.
11. Truman:  I agree.
4. Data Model and Data Dictionary:
1. Peter:  We didn’t have company listed on the data model last time so, that was added.  Along with type of business and class.  Most of the updates that has been done in the last week have actually been under the data dictionary page.
2. Ruturaj:  Want to have an explicit discussion about the company identifiers 
3. Ken:  Currently the multi tenant node does not use the company as an identifier.
4. Truman:  Company listed is for operational purposes; the data is completely de identified.
5. Dale:  Thinking of the future—if states start asking for data calls by companies this model will be helpful- a NAIC code would be added as an attributes
6. Truman:  Would like to keep it—attribute as the company would know to help with respect to claims and central objects, creating a broader model
7. Ruturaji: We’ll give the data dictionary more time and attention—will send out offline updates---leaving ‘company’ in the model would like to know ‘yes’ or ‘no’.  We would like to get everyone together to vote the model.

Action items

•  Daniela to reach out to mailing list about adding themselves to the member list for this WG
•  Charter Sub-Committee to be formed and meet outside working group meetings, to present charter
•  Peter to analyze the Company entity and kick off the next meeting with his alternative view