2022 12 12

[seanmcilroy29]

2022 12 12 Policy WG Agenda / Minutes

Time 0830 PST / 1630 BST - See the time in your timezone https://everytimezone.com/s/a8399b00

• Chair – Chris Adams (The Green Web Foundation)
• Chair - Elise Zelechowski (Thoughtworks)
• Convener – Sean Mcilroy (Linux Foundation)## Date

Antitrust Policy

Linux Foundation meetings involve participation by industry competitors, and it is the intention of the Linux Foundation to conduct all of its activities in accordance with applicable antitrust and competition laws. It is therefore extremely important that attendees adhere to meeting agendas, and be aware of, and not participate in, any activities that are prohibited under applicable US state, federal or foreign antitrust and competition laws.

Examples of types of actions that are prohibited at Linux Foundation meetings and in connection with Linux Foundation activities are described in the Linux Foundation Antitrust Policy available at http://www.linuxfoundation.org/antitrust-policy. If you have questions about these matters, please contact your company counsel, or if you are a member of the Linux Foundation, feel free to contact Andrew Updegrove of the firm of Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the Linux Foundation.

Recordings

The Working Group Meeting is recorded and is available for members to review until the next scheduled meeting.

Meeting transcript

Roll Call

Please add 'Attended' to this issue during the meeting to denote attendance.

Any untracked attendees will be added by the GSF team below:

• Full Name, Affiliation, GitHub username (optional)

Agenda

• [x] Convene & Roll Call
• [x] Review and Approve Agenda

  Sean reviews agenda - no objections - Agenda approved

• [x] Approve previous Meeting Minutes
• Kin motions to approve the minutes - No objections - Minutes approved

Pull Requests - Nothing submitted

Nothing to review

SoGS report

• [x] Review KPI report and discuss next steps in light of the delay with interviews and desk research

  Anita provides an update on the SoG report

• [x] Discuss additional ways of promoting the survey (Survey Monkey, YouGov)

  See discussion

• [x] Discuss Cameron's draft stakeholder map

  Cameron: I grabbed some of the organisations noted in the comments, and then added a couple of my own. I have linking to the site and then pasted it over what their own little summaries are about what each one is. We could change the format and use a different template or include more detail.

Agenda Items [Deferred]

• [x] #7
• [x] Focused objectives for 2023

COP27

• Chris Adams - back brief for COP27

  Part of 1 of 3 LF Organiation groups: OS climate & Hyperledger. OS climate, is for financial data around achieving net zero and understanding things such as physical and climate risk, or implied temperature lies in the portfolio's that various companies may actually have do. Hyperledger WG: primarily have a real focus on scope 3 and supply chain analysis. I will be posting a blog which will provide some information. The key takeaways I found was that there appears to be a lot less ambiguity around the idea of what Node Zero is supposed to be meaning and various organisations like the ISO and science based targets, how are increasingly essentially linking things like 1.52 degrees of warming to what people refer to as net zero. And given that the Linux Foundation we found out actually have built a series of open source tools for tracking the kind of imply temperature rise for organisations, they may well we have a case that if we are actually talking about organisations, and listing this criteria, like we've had no trademark, there's may be chance for overlaps there. There was actually surprising whether it was that were in the in the context of actually software having an environmental footprint or anything like that at all. Generally, there is almost zero representation of the ICT sector in the ACT cop, other than it being used as an enabler of various climate solutions. The Linux Foundation, there are still a negotiation to figure out whether it makes sense to be represented at COP 28, or how best to do that, because there's different bodies who have been involved. But now that we've been to one, it's very, very easy for us to continue being at the future ones. So it's likely that in the, in the in the early stages of 2023. There'll be a discussion about whether how best to represent and what kind of agenda do we want to push because presumably by then, after these reports, we should have some clear policy positions that we would like to be kind of aiming for here.

Regulatory Policy

GSF Standards to be adopted by Industry regulators

• Kin Chiu (UBS)

What we're seeing generally, is what regulators are asking about, specifically in the cloud space, but by default, it looks at the architecture of rule, technology architecture overall, is there a focus on cybersecurity, and governance strategy, etc. But as we're moving on, we're seeing questions from our ISO 14,001 certification about what is cloud doing?

WG Discussion transcript

Summary - What is the interplay between the work going into the SCI so far and existing carbon accounting standards, and how how does the SCI relate to existing work with existing standards? Such as the ISO 1401 or other environmental management.

AOB, Q&A

Agreed to cancel the 26th Dec meeting

Next meeting 09th Jan

Agreed

Adjourn

Meeting adjourned

---

Previous meeting Action Items

• [ ] {add AI and person it was assigned to}
• [ ] {add AI and person it was assigned to}

[mrchrisadams]

Attended

[Leamsi9]

Attended

[seanmcilroy29]

Attended

[holanita]

Attended

[ciril-emaps]

Attended