Refeds


Subject Re: draft charge, refeds working group on attribute release
From Nicole Harris <Nicole.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:05:23 +0100

Licia

i think that was exactly what i was arguing for.  David was arguing in favour of raising the bar to ONLY allow institutions that can do LOA2 and above in to federations.  i'm arguing that we have to provide both low level and high level assurance to meet all the requirements of our community.  Perhaps I'm coming out too strongly in favour of the small organisations rather than e-science, but they need someone to argue for them.

I also think you may have missed a strong dose of english sarcasm ;-) I actually meant the exact opposite, it is highly unlikely that a service with that many members is offering something that is so out of tune with its user's needs as David suggest.  Sorry, i should know the danger of being too colloquial on a multi-lingual list. 

N


On 4 Jul 2011, at 16:23, Licia Florio wrote:

> Hi Nicole,
> 
> 
>> However, if our 864 members want to go and procure services elsewhere that is absolutely fine by us.  
>> It would free up service money to be spent elsewhere.  The JISC Portfolio review process is there to make sure we only offer people the services they want. 
>> If there is service level demand for your service, I'm sure it will be considered via the same channels. 
> 
> Maybe this would be JISC's position (assuming you are now talking for
> JISC), but I'm not sure all NRENs would have an equal casual approach if
> all their members would start getting their services elsewhere ;)
> 
> I agree that you want to start offering services that satisfy the
> majority of the users, but I think NRENs should try and address the
> requirements of all their user-groups. It may not be possible to offer
> services to all user-groups (maybe it turns out that some groups can be
> better served elsewhere), but I would rather see this statement as a
> conclusion than as a starting point.
> 
> cheers,
> Licia