# WG Governance 20220421

Participants: Stefanie Mehnert, Silvia Catellvi, Michael Leibfried, Frank Ingenrieth, Mark Dietrich, Lukas Klingholz, David Schönwerth

## Antitrust Statement & Intro (5’)

Readout of Antitrust Guidelines
Readout of Agenda

## Scoping & Alignment of the three individual sub-working groups (25’)
Why do we have the (parallel) sub wgs?

Because we are in an early phase where we are still exploring.
We understand that some things are indeed complementary.
Thus we discussed yesterday between Michael, Frank, Mark and David if all of this should be put into a single information model.
We believe at some point we should put all of this together in a common index. Right now, this is a bit too early though - thus we will remain with the 3 sub wg configuration in parallel so far before we feed this into a common bachlog.

What do we mean with information model concretely?
It is how to structure information, express relations between them. We also realised that during the current phase (capture, classify, aggregate findings) one kind of structure makes sense, that might be changed later, if we need to organise to work on the finding.

This is tool independend and can be expresses in a spread sheet like matrix, a mind map like approach or slide ware as done in the current phase.

If it is then in the next phase about working on the findings, we consider a more project managemrnt like list/ticket approach.

The subWG leads and David ensured that things are working accross current and next phase.

This lead to the following decision: As we are expecting VERY high workload to collect and analyse all the info in the sub-wgs, we suggest to gather info first in 3 separate places (ie 3 sub wgs) and later integrate everything into the information model (table).

In the current phase, we like maximum autonomy per sub-wg without friction, but ensuring that things can be brought together in the next phase of work.

In a next phase we identified a backlo like structure as lead mechanism to structure findungs, and using identified aspects in the individual sub WGs to enrich and document the details found in the subWGs.

How can be get more people involved into the sub-wgs? --> See below!

## Governance Understanding Sub-Working Group (10‘) – Mark Dietrich
In particular, how can we engage the various DSIs to contribute to Mark's sub wg?
- We can take part in their meetings to discuss
- We can use the Requirements Managemnt Process being set up
- We can bring it up at Committee level
- We can have individual point to point discusseion

There have been some conversations re. input from DSIs for Mark's group but it will not be easy to engage with them due to time constraints, etc.
Will be necessary to follow-up on these conversations quickly and ask the DSI reps to answer the questions by filling the document.

Suggestion to take each weekly meeting to invite one DSI rep and discuss the questions by them.

Is it feasible to ask these questions "live" instead of in written form?
On the one hand, it is quite hard to answer these questions on the spot for a DSI rep.
On the other, for many questions, they might not have figured this out yet, which makes it hard to just send over a questionnaire and ask for it to be filled.

How do we get traction with this?
(...)

It was established that there is a DSBA working group which also discusses governance of data spaces.

Discussion followed how this relates to work in this very wg. This does not seem aligned. It is unclear if/how these two wgs missions align and if what we do here makes too much sense against this background.

Conclusion was that this is an open discussion which is not solved yet and cannot be solved be the attending members of the WG.

Proposition: it could make sense to move out uncontroversial artifacts / questions from the sub-wgs and turn them into a first whitepaper. Then follow-up with other elements later.

We discussed the question on how the different associations and Gaia-X work together structurally.
For that Mark is structuring the various governance models based on the layered governance model A-D as discussed in meetings before.

This also allows to create instantiations of Gaia-X sub hubs or Dta Spaces that operate against their own individual governance model, as well as contracts between parties also imply a certain governance.

Eg. there is a difference between Gaia-X Governance and Governance required for something that shall be Gaia-X labelled

## RACI Sub-Working Group (10‘) – Frank Ingenrieth
## Update Event-Storming Sub-Working Group (10’) – Michael Leibfried

Regarding agenda item 2: WG Governance members are encouraged to review the governance requirements spreadsheet: https://community.gaia-x.eu/f/14409100

We discussed also how the functional flow gives you change management related situations that need to be covered by a governance model.

## Chat from today:

[13:58] Michael Leibfried
For note taking - https://hackmd.io/3VkFKHzCTyeUlaZxOT1yBw

[14:01]
Mehnert, Stefanie ist dem Chat vorübergehend beigetreten.

[14:02]
Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest) (Gast) ist dem Chat vorübergehend beigetreten.

[14:34] Michael Leibfried
Silvia, are you in team with Giuditta and taking notes? You are welcome to use above like where David and me capture a protocoll

[14:51] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
This is "change management"

[14:51] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
Which is certainly part of governance, depending on scope

[14:51] Michael Leibfried
true

[14:54] Frank Ingenrieth
we have to strip apart misunderstanding of Gaia-X Governance and Governance Required for Somethiing that shall be Gaia-X Labelled.

[14:59] Mark Dietrich (EGI) (Guest)
Unfortunately I need to jump to next meeting....  This has been a good discussion.  Keen to exploit the work of DSBA (avoid double work).  This can be used to encourage specific DSIs to provide their own answers...