Matthew Viljoen (MV) (chair) Sy Holsinger (SH) Alessandro Paolini (AP) Mariut Andler (MA) Damien Lecarpentier (DL) Pavel Weber (PW) Yannick Legre (YL) Johannes Reetz (JR) Tiziana Ferrari (TF) Malgorzata Krakowian (MK) Diego Scardaci (DS) Introduction (MV) -------------------- MV presented the introductory slides and different federation scenarios of loose and tight integration Discussion (All) -------------------- YL: Are we dealing with integration of ISM processes or services? In EOSChub we decided in the DoA to have some common services MV: Both, but the scenarios are more oriented on the processes point of view TF: Some services will be shared (for example Marketplace, AAI, Helpdesk) In EGI we already have different level of integration with other infrastructure or national initiatives, for example a lose scenario is used with USA infrastructure we can apply different schemes with different services MA: what is required to the providers by EUDAT and EGI about the processes to integrate? we need to think how to increase the usage of services by the users examine each service to understand the level of integration YL: the service providers need to follow the processes requirements because any change to a services will have a large impact on the customers PW: agrees with YL, https://wiki.eosc-hub.eu/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=20382717 shows the services under the scope of CHM in EUDAT we should define the common services and procedures to include in this partial integration with several hundreds of service providers it may be easy loose the control on the services PW: we need to focus first on the core infrastructure services (like for example helpdesk) which must be up and running at an early point in the project SH: we can decide which services and processes will be coordinated by individual providers, which ones managing in a joint way at the process level: what makes sense managing in a coordinated/separated way? MV: suggest we produce a high level document in which the level of integration proposed is proposed, both from the ISM process and the service point of view TF: one requirement nice to have: processes that are customer facing need to be harmonized as much as possible, for some services we have to go with a tight integration, with others a partial integration, need to give higher priority to customer processes SH: a starting point can be the Fitsm requirements we will be audited, so we need to organize internal audits as well we need to demonstrate that we have a control of what we manage MV: proposing that for the time-frame of the first AHM (Apr '18) we could start working with this document describing the integration. The people working on this would be the people in the call: WP2,5,6 (Sy(?) added the following to the chat to put the time-frame in context) Milestone - M5 (May 2018): Initial structure of SMS Milestone - M12 (Dec 2018): Majority of SMS is completed → 1st Audit (March/April 2019) Deliverable - M18 (June 2019): Report on SMS implementation → 2nd Audit (May/June 2020) Deliverable - M36 (Dec 2020): Final project report MV: the output of this integration working group could feed into the above initial milestones. Diego: supports the idea of focusing on the customer side - practical work for offering a common interface to the users (for example in CRM, SPM catalog) A step by step approach JR: assuming there are several services and processes that have to be integrated, we need to consider a scenario that is sustainable in the future, after the project end. Is this really a competitive model that we are following? YL: some integration level will bring more clarity and usability to the customers focusing on the users can be the right approach The marketplace is a fundamental service. Outcomes, actions and DONM -------------------- We will start work on a collaborative document outlining the integration strategy - both from a ISM processes and services point of view. We will schedule a new meeting in 1 month time, reviewing progress on the document.