openIDS Work Group 2/27/25

Open

Attendees

James Bamberger

Sean Bohan

Amanda Brine

Josh Hershman

Cory Isaacson

Andrew Mielke

Lanaya Nelson

Michael Payne

Andrew Regis

Ken Sayers

Michael Schwabrow

Nathan Southern

Michael Sullivan

Jennifer Tornquist

Greg Williams

Agenda

Proposed Agenda for 2/27/25 openIDS Working Group. 

Note: Original items in regular font - follow-up comments/updates in blue.

1. Agenda for openIDS Working Group meeting 2/27:

   1. Preliminary Comments by Josh Hershman:

      1. He and Lanaya ran the white paper through one of the ChatGPT engines to effectuate greater flow and stylistic consistency given the large number of authors. The results were an improvement. They have been included at the end of the current white paper draft document for everyone’s reference (beginning with the header statement ‘Here is a cleaned up version…' and continuing with all the text in bold font).

      2. The plan is for Lanaya to eventually move this new copy out into its own document - but for purposes of this meeting, Josh put everything in one place for the group to scroll through and review.

   2. Main Focus: White Paper wrap-up - final draft target ETA of EOD 2/27 Today

      1. Numerous comments are coming in

      2. Lanaya is also cataloguing action items in a separate document - the ‘white paper review document’ - which brings the comments all into one location and keeps them organized.

      3. Per Josh’s suggestion, the group covered the high-level outstanding questions in meeting and discussed as follows prior to a formal sign-off - starting with Lanaya’s white paper review document (not the white paper itself). Those present gave a broad consensus, yay or nay, on each point, As follows, working from the white paper review document:

         1. Title of paper - 'The Case for Open Insurance Data Standards' received broadest consensus from the group with no objections expressed. Formally approved.

         2. Abstract Section - Cory has been working steadily on this - specifically, on the ‘Alternative' section beneath 'Introduction.’ Felt that the content is very strong; made minor modifications. No additional tweaks or modifications or revisions were requested in meeting.

         3. Length needs to be cut down per suggestions from Tornquist and Schwabrow; Josh and Lanaya pointed out that in general, redundancies and repetition can be removed, though they also noted that when the document was run through ChatGPT, this shortening happened by default.

         4. Audience clarification - the audience needs to be clearer. “Data/engineering/security/underwriting/for MGAs, mutuals, carriers, brokers, data providers to the insurance industry, C&PMS (guidewires).”

         5. Greater clarity about what it is that we’re asking people to do - action item. KS: This has been discussed with Werner. He wrote the data problem paper, and is circulating it with C-level folks, and will encourage them to hand off to their chief data officers. His expectation is that they will acknowledge the problem, and then ask, what is the solution. In turn, they will be presented with the full white paper. The white paper should serve as a corollary to the data problem paper.

         6. Tightness: Per Jim’s comments: paper should be tighter regarding what the problem is and how the group is creating an open ins. data standard to fix it. Clearer about our need/desire to proactively get people involved. We need the industry to help us do this. Josh stressed that AI tightened up the paper well and solved issues 4-6 above. Ken agreed.

         7. Incorporate the clause “driven by the industry” - latter especially is a superior phrase to “owned by the industry”; also implies a currency. It already is used in the industry. (the others agreed). Rob: “driven by the industry” implies an active tense. KS: strongly endorsed the continued inclusion of “free” - referencing something that has caused others to fail. Werner asked not to use “free.” “Open” may be a better word choice than “free.” (The others agreed) - open licensed.

         8. Call out the inclusion of IP from Cloverleaf in a more meaningful way. (Cloverleaf reps. agreed) - adds instant credibility to the paper. Note: that Cloverleaf should determine where and how they want to incorporate this.

         9. Implementation Omission: Josh and Ken - advocated avoiding a discussion of implementation and an omission of “privacy” altogether; this paper is all about the creation of a standard. Omit all material related to implementation - do not address deployment across a network, even partially.

         10. Problem Articulation: Cory suggestion (overall) - this paper should entirely be geared toward problem articulation and opportunities, and how an open standard solves them, it can end there. Another subsequent paper can discuss how the problems are solved. Later it will be possible to get into the details of how this really can work. Lanaya agreed, given the limited amount of bandwidth people have.

   3. Question raised about how the donation of Cloverleaf’s IP will be communicated externally, and Josh floated different options, including possibly announcing this IP donation and the white paper in a single press release.

   4. Jenny expressed a concern about the diagrams incorporated into the AI version of the document - these should be in there, not repeated, and in the right order; busy diagram should come first and then simplified version (with the green ovals) and then the solution one last. The OIDS diagram should be omitted.

   5. Cory pointed out that alongside the Introduction there is an Alternative that he would like to incorporate as a substitute, in the AI version; the group presented no objections and he made this change in meeting. (The section that is being replaced begins ‘Open standards are publicly available…’) Also ran through most of the other sections in meeting and signed off on them, but feels the material on down is too long-winded and can be significantly shortened.

It was decided that the standing meeting on Monday morning will be moved to 1 Central/2 Eastern on Mon. 3/3. Lanaya will reschedule this for the group.

c. Specifications Working Group Organization

1. Who will be chair or co-chairs?

   a) List of participants from each stakeholder group

   b) Set up meeting cadence

Action Items

Workstream Members - Shorten white paper per JT’s request by removing redundancies/repetition

Lanaya: Work through above list of edits and incorporate them into the paper.

Cloverleaf Team - Decide how to call out their donation of IP in the white paper, and work this into the document.

Lanaya: Omit mention of security altogether. Remove the word “free” and replace with “open.”

Lanaya: Adjust illustrations in the AI version of the white paper per Jennifer and Cory’s requests in meeting.

Lanaya: Send out AI cleaned/edited document with corrected voice. Be sure to run through ChatGPT with Cory’s edits incorporated this time. Wait until he finishes his edits below.

Lanaya: Move Monday’s meeting to 1 Central/2 Eastern for 60 min. exclusively to discuss white paper.

Cory: Simplify whole section of the white paper from the core model on down; this can be trimmed dramatically. A statement can be added at the end - “more information forthcoming in the next paper.” Today or tomorrow (Fri. 2/28) so that we have this ready for Monday. More technical depth can be added in a second white paper.

Workstream Members - Look through AI-edited version between now and next Wednesday, and let Nathan know via email (nsouthern@linuxfoundation.org) where you stand in your response to the document by Wed 3/5. So that we can hopefully wrap this up.

Nathan: Report back to Josh when answer is received.

Sean: For community specifications working group - reach out to everyone via email; establish who the key stakeholders are and who the two co-chairs will be. From here, set up a doodle poll, determine dates/times/cadence for meetings, and get series underway.

Open