---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'September 11, 2025'
tags: [steering, Meeting]

---

Steering Group - Meeting Minute
===

###### tags: `Templates` `Meeting`

:::info
- **Location:**   https://utexas.zoom.us/my/kimray 
- **Date:** Thursday, September 11th at 6 am PT / 3 pm CEST
- **Participants:**
    - Camille
    - Franco
    - Dora
    - Kim
    - Chris
    - Yaroslav
    
**Agenda**

1. Maintainers updates `10? min`
    > [name=Chris]
    - Steering nominations open. In the past, people have needed to be encouraged to nominate themselves.
    - 9 BEPs claiming to be ready/nearly ready. At 1 week prep + 2 week review, we have time for 3 to be reviewed this semester. (Sept 22-Oct 3, Oct 13-24, Nov 3-14). Possible to double-up.
2. Maintainer Presence at INCF/EBRAINS  `10 min`
    - previous discussion concluded with SC wanting more info about what a 'booth' at EBrains/INCF would look like. 
        - two possible Maintainers could attend but need funding
        - maintainers mentioned that previous INCF presence was overall positive
3. BIDS in-person meeting before/after OHBM 2026 `10 min`
    - [name=suggested previously by Camille]
    - poll results: 
Are you planning to attend OHBM/could you join the BIDS meeting in person? :+1: = yes [8], :-1: = no [1]
When would you prefer to have such a meeting? 
:one: Before Brainhack  - 1 vote
:two: During Brainhack - 3 votes
:three: Before OHBM, separate from Brainhack - 4 votes
:four: After OHBM - 0 votes

Note from Camille: no member of steering replied to the poll (note 2 of the current members will have left steering by June).

4. Sharing BIDS Steering notes online 
    - [name=suggested  by Kim - noted on mattermost Camille :+1:]
    - what should be shared? 
5. **BIDS steering elections?**
[name=suggested  by Kim, Camille :+1:]
6. Establish actions for BIDS discussions w/journals`10 min`
    > [name=suggested by Kim Ray]
    > GOAL: tag when journals have BIDS compliant datasets that are sharable.
    > - https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-validator/issues/219 
7. more?
    > [name=?]

- **Host:** Kim Ray
- **Contact:**  <kimray@utexas.edu>

:::

:books: Meeting Minutes
---

**Maintainers updates**
>[name=Chris] 
>
ChrisM: All, please use your networks to encourage strong leadership to volunteer for the ongoing BIDS Steering elections

ChrisM: 9 BEPS are up for merging, typical pace has been about 1 per year but maintainers are aiming for 3 BEPS by the end of the year. 
* BEP 042: EMG
* BEP 038: Atlas
* BEP 020: Eye-tracking
* BEP 024: CT
* BEP 028: Provenance
* BEP 036: Phenotypic Data Guidelines?
* BEP 037: Non-invasive stimulation
* BEP 044: Stimuli
* BEP 032: Microelectrode

CM: If there are 9 BEPS, 
We needs to clarify process and disclose this to BEP leads. 

Chris: there are 3 review periods, 2 BEPS might be able to be merged in a period depending on various factors (if they are orthogonal and can reviewed by separate maintainers at he same time)

Chris: Since June, maybe BEPS have indicated they are ready, and this is in response to the community needs.

FP: The community hasnt been aware of this process
Chris: its a larger list of BEPS than usual and the maintainers are working through this process. 

Chris:  is a 3 BEP cadence supported? If so, maintainers will reach out to leads. What happens if a community commenter raises an issue with fountaional design choices that could lead to major revisions?  its a concern that could throw off the planned schedule. 

YH: lends support for 3 BEPS and suggests inviting experts in the BEP fields to review. also suggests to promote the process wider, and incorporate the process concerns into the BEP Lead guidleines map yml file. 
    *Polish procedures for any step of diagram: inviting community, how to provide review, etc
    *Ask BEP leads to keep bep.yaml file updated to distribute info for BEP process: status, what aspects left TODO
    * establish a 3 person group to help with conflict resolution: 1 steering group memer, 1 BEP lead, 1 maintainer; so if conflict - majority vote (so 2 must agree)
    *ex: OME_zarr community has a github review process that requires alternative documentation (a summary page) that potentially decreases the number of comments that get lost.  It is more like creating a "publication like review". See e.g. (randomly chosen) https://github.com/ome/ngff/tree/main/rfc/5  here is rendered: https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/rfc/5/index.html
    
    Chris: how should maintainers we proceed? 
    
DH & CM: please cc the steering group email

FP: we should have an open house to communicate this widely which could help reduce confusion and email across BIDS

DH: suggests a Working group for BEP process (Eric has already requested this)
CM: we should join and support that mission
YH: Eric suggested posted meeting notes 


TODO: ask Eric about the WG on BEP process and try and associate a SG member if possible [Camille can take that on]
TODO: put out a call for a communication maintainer [Camille can take that on]


2. Maintainer Presence at INCF/EBRAINS  `10 min`
- Yaroslav emailed Helena with INCF asking if BIDS could have a desk and 1-2 registrations for BIDS maintainers on Sept 10th. 
- Yarslav supports having a fully staffed desk at the meeting
- CM: inquires about who the EBRAINS Attendees will be and if the audience will be large enough to justify supporting BIDS
- YH: INCF and EBRAINS are both BIDS supportive, 
- FP: we could do more than a table, to build community relations.
- Decisions on INCF /EBRAINS can be made on mattermost prior to next SG meeting.



**BIDS in-person meeting before/after OHBM 2026**

KR: reviews poll results posted above, DH mentions she would love to be in the BIDS meeting, 
FP: votes yes for BIDS meeting, 
YH: votes yes for BIDS meeting, wants to have BIDS within brainhack, suggest a BIDS track throughout the hackathon, and adding a half day for maintains only (maybe last day), volunteers to help organize
CM: Steering should meet in person more regularly, it sounds like the steering is honing in on having it during the brainhack.
YH: not enthusiastic for BIDS to sponsor, but maybe other groups could sponsor
CM: sponsorship might be a positive way to ensure that BIDS can have dedicatd space
YH: suggests rephrasing BIDS' ask for a room/track and then find out what may be needed from OSSIG for this
    TODO: Yaroslav and Camille will email OSSIG


**Add Peer to the next BIDS meeting** 
Discussion current standing of 5 BEPS , challenges, and path forward
Please add 15 mins before the meeting