---
# System prepended metadata

title: WG Governance 20220407

---

# WG Governance 20220407

## Starting the meeting
### Welcome
### Compliance info

Observations - Discussing whether invite via mailing list is reducing the number of invitees Giuditta will check and report back

### Introduction
Lars presenting his visualisation and his understanding of what we are doing

Lars suggests a process whose goal is "Common Framework for Data Spaces" as well as "DSBA and DSSC". This WG should work on
* RACI Matrix 
* Joint initial understand of Governance for DS
* Questionnaire on governance.

There should be a continuous interaction with the ecosystem verticals .
There should be a continuous reflection with the Joint information model. 



Question was raised why Gaia-X (and this WG) is participating in DBSA as this seems to be the goal 

Lars suggests that common framework for data spaces is out of scope of this wg and that discussions there are not part of this wg. Rather, this wg could have DSBA/DSSC output as input. 

Suggestion was made that DSBA ecosystem is explicitly in our scope as Gaia-X is part of DSBA. As this wg deals with governance, we need to understand what they do, what we want to achieve, if we are in line with them and how we can deal with that. 

Suggestion was made that AISBL struggles to spell out what they want to apply governance to. How is governance applied to infrastructure? 

Suggestion was made that DSBC seems to become process owner of DSBC req mgmt process. 

Dominik outlines the role of the DSBC in the req. mgmt process. Dominik suggests there is a hen and an egg problem. Reqs. are being split for different working groups. Reqs. are said to arrive. Reqs. from business are often a bit high level still. 

Suggestion that many reqs. cover things which we are out of scope. Suggestion was made this wg should only do what is within its scope, instead of covering any reqs. that come in. Such would rather belong to DSSC. 

Dominik suggests that some reqs. are very high level. Neither scope nor exact definition of req is in the req. 

### Discussion of Governance Comparison Table (Mark)

Mark reports that he spoke to various people in order to collect input from them. 
This input should be fed into the sheet here: https://community.gaia-x.eu/apps/files/?dir=/Data%20Spaces%20Business%20Committee/WG%20Governance/Step%202:%20Governance%20definition-related%20work%20%28Mark%29&openfile=14409100&scrollto=Gaia-X%20Governance%20WG%20Comparison%20Matrix.xlsx

Lars suggests this should be continued in the next 2 weeks with the relevant ecosystems. 

(not clear yet who will do what here) 

This will have to be aligned with the conceptual model. 

Suggestion how disturbances can be handled, e.g., conflict resolution in case of the breach of a smart contract. How do interface and procedure look, who provides documentes, who audits, does someone go to court, etc. 


### Related to first part 
Suggestion was made that it is still unclear how we can interact with other groups and that the deliverables should not be defined yet; there was a lack of internal SLAs and sync with other groups; picture seems to oversimplify the process even though the process is much more fluid and complex. 

Lars suggests he did indeed oversimplify as he wants to make results, also in order to have something for the DSBC meeting every few weeks (ie deliverable). Maybe table results can be merged with paper of Mark. Then we would have sth for the Gaia-X rulebook. 

First wins would be helpful to motivate others to commit work to the group. 

### Joint Information Model 
This can help with the following: 
* Can the AISBL articulate sharply what they are taking care of? Where are boundaries of AISBL? 
* There must be smarter answers than saying "this is not our thing" but rather, we are not defining it, but it is done there and connects to AISBL in the following way. 
* Thus, big picture needs to be understood and described; AISBL needs to contextualise with other actors and processes. 

Exactly for this, we need the Joint Information Model. There is a need to define these things. 
Event Storming is integral for our work. 

Dominik jumps in and talks about definition of data spaces: 
* Suggests that there are lots of solutions of dataspaces out there. While we define Gaia-X framework, there are existing data spaces in the agro and automotive area. These again put business req. at Gaia-X. 
* The role of the hubs is very important and are a think tank who collect business reqs. and are in the market. Alignment should be made with use cases in lighthouse projects and jump from there. 
* There are several levels what a data space is. Legal, technical, EU, realisation; all this needs to be bundled. 
* Those are not necessarily using solutions which are by one organisation. People want to have answers. 
* In a nutshell: we should not start from scratch. 

Frank reacts to this: 
* to be defined what should be in scope of the trust Gaia-X wants to foster
* We may want to cater existing dataspaces outside Gaia-X world
* Thus, where is the common ground and what does GAia-X understand as a Gaia-X dataspace

Michael reacts to this: 
* There is a need for collaboration and transparency here. 

Mark reacts to this: 
* It is not clear what should be within and outside the Gaia-X trust framework. We are not there yet. 
* Years of literature about development of platform ecosystems: negotiate where the boundaries are amongst peers or have a dominant partner define the boundaries. We should not (!) take the second view. 
* Re. the smart contracting services example from earlier, there are definitely expectations in the market; people are hoping Gaia-X might solve certain things. This should be discussed - what does this mean and how to handle requests from the reality. 


Michael reacts to this: 
* We should have a clear mental model. There should be a clear way to articulate this. 
* Negotiations need to take place, this could happen using Event Storming tool. 


Defining what Gaia-X wants to do is to be done first, then we can discuss with the lighthouses. 


### Conclusion Lars 
* Agree on 3 action items: 
    * interview ecosystem verticals and let them fill the table
    * scroll through ecosystem model and trust framework and fill the table
    * put items from michaels event storming into Mark's table

(full task allocation not clear yet, discussion started) 


### Links

Link from Mark Dietrich - https://community.gaia-x.eu/apps/files/?dir=/Data%20Spaces%20Business%20Committee/WG%20Governance/Step%202:%20Governance%20definition-related%20work%20%28Mark%29&openfile=14409100&scrollto=Gaia-X%20Governance%20WG%20Comparison%20Matrix.xlsx

Link from Mark: https://community.gaia-x.eu/f/14409100



### Chat 

[14:28] Verdonck, Bert
I miss: the relation of this work to the Gaia-X Trust framework and conceptual model ... think that needs to be much more explicitly referenced in our work. And I miss a closer connection to the ecosystem verticals: let's address their current needs, they try to establish a data space and have a lot of gaps in their solution space - we should help them fill those gaps. I.e. shared work with Technical WG and TC.
 like 2



[14:37] Frank Ingenrieth
FYI: https://community.gaia-x.eu/f/14410968 still looking for a better solution to create such a more mindmap related representation, but for the time being PowerPoint may suite. The file shall shall related the Initiatives with the Needs (already risen) and Potential needs (as identified by other Data Space Related Publications covering Governance aspects). I will also add a reference to the Document of Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest) because it appears sensible that the Spreadsheet and the "Clusters" in the MindMap approach align during the process(es) 



[14:05] Frank Ingenrieth
Verdonck, Bert (External)Sorry, hackmd is blocked by my companies policies...buzzword filter and "hack" is considered dangerous?  
 laugh 1

[14:07] Frank Ingenrieth
if the invite is send to the mailing list, you will only see the individual participants if they actively RSVP'ed

[14:08] Frank Ingenrieth
so a not listing does not mean, they did not receive the invite, it just indicates they did not perform an RSVP

[14:09] Giuditta del Buono
34 people are in the mailing list

[14:09] Giuditta del Buono
Mark D is in
 like 1

[14:10] Giuditta del Buono
Forwarded the invite to him again
 like 1

[14:10] Michael Leibfried
Mark has not received the invite.. 

[14:11] Giuditta del Buono
I'll check with him, we'll understand how - I'm sorry

[14:11] 
Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest) has temporarily joined the chat.

[14:14] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
I have created a DCP spreadsheet to capture info: https://community.gaia-x.eu/f/14409100

[14:28] Verdonck, Bert
I miss: the relation of this work to the Gaia-X Trust framework and conceptual model ... think that needs to be much more explicitly referenced in our work. And I miss a closer connection to the ecosystem verticals: let's address their current needs, they try to establish a data space and have a lot of gaps in their solution space - we should help them fill those gaps. I.e. shared work with Technical WG and TC.
 like 2

[14:34] Verdonck, Bert
I need to jump to another call now, thanks

[14:34] Michael Leibfried
See you!

[14:37] Frank Ingenrieth
FYI: https://community.gaia-x.eu/f/14410968 still looking for a better solution to create such a more mindmap related representation, but for the time being PowerPoint may suite. The file shall shall related the Initiatives with the Needs (already risen) and Potential needs (as identified by other Data Space Related Publications covering Governance aspects). I will also add a reference to the Document of Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest) because it appears sensible that the Spreadsheet and the "Clusters" in the MindMap approach align during the process(es) 

[14:45] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
For me having a targeted deliverable is helpful.  The interactions must certainly happen, but we need outputs.

[14:46] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
In earlier meetings we talked about writing the document "how to set up a data space from a governance perspective"

[14:47] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
This is why I want to delegate columns to fill in!

[14:55] Lars Nagel
did we already check the match of the current event storm model with the table from Mark?

[14:56] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
Lars Nagel no.  I was hoping that woudl start happening yesterday!
 sad 1

[15:01] Obladen, Tobias
need to step out, looking forward to continue the discussion next time and maybe provide some more insights from Catena-X. Have a nice day!

[15:01] 
Obladen, Tobias no longer has access to the chat.

[15:01] Frank Ingenrieth
Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest) agree: defining the boundaries for me must include the market proposition and expectations. If the market requires massively XAZ, Gaia-X should strongly consider this inside the boundary. But still, Gaia-X need to be precise on its boundaries (alongside its roadmap) to address the expectations. Worst thing to happen: public perception evolves that XAZ is covered by Gaia-X, but Gaia-X decided (but lacked communicating) that XAZ is not and maybe even never will be covered  

[15:01] Lukas Klingholz
i need to leave sharp, see you next week.

[15:01] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
Obladen, Tobias can you look at the spreadhseet for Catena X?

[15:01] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
I also have another meeting sorry...

[15:02] Michael Leibfried
Ned to drop.. Sorry! Good discussion!
 like 1

[15:03] 
Michael Leibfried hat auf den Chat keinen Zugriff mehr.

[15:03] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
Lars Nagel can you please invite WG members to volunteer to fill in columns?  Phillippe?  Anne-Sophie?

[15:04] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
I can take a stab at Trust Framework.

[15:04] Mehnert, Stefanie
Sorry, I need to drop as well






