Conny reviewed the purpose of the meeting: review feedback from July meeting; get input from participants today to help shape the charter.

Conny reviewed where we are in the process and the goals of today's meeting. 

• Process
• Goals and objectives
• Potential work streams

Review feedback captured from 15 July Meeting

Use this feedback to help shape the charter

Conny shared the feedback he received via email from the last meeting (See Conny's slides for this meeting). Participants today added theirs as well.

• Limit Scope (do not tackle track and trace at this point; focus on field ops data).
• Involvement of FMIS companies is critical for success
  • Need to import data from FMIS companies in other countries and for other similar crops (beets, etc.)
• Engage NA, France and Germany
• What are the results we expect? What is a clear outcome?
  • Can we make it easier for the farmers to report their data?
• What can we achieve in a short time (not 8 years!)
• How do we harmonize with Atlas?
• Unclear what role do potato processors have? They need to provide the objectives, what kind of data they need, etc. 
• McCain reaffirmed the value of the project
• If we are talking about track and trace, need a clear example - agreed that it is out of scope for the current working group
• Farmers would like yield and quality data, payout and prices (farmers have many different portals). A common standard would help enable this.
• Do not assume REST JSON is better than XML. Need to address this within the working group.
• Isagri not yet ready to join
• Alistair: in principle, this is good. It is a fair challenge to get an agreement across FMIS companies. We use a private JSON standard. Highly unlikely that all FMIS companies will provide lots of data, except at a very high level. Underwhelmed by the lack of FMIS involvement. They are key to defining the solution. Why would they prioritize this work?
• Ivor - an open standard, yes? 
• Andy Wolff - Challenge: Every FMIS is different. There are many standards and the implementation of each are different; you get a diffusion effect. 
• Ben: make sure the farmer sees the value. Also recognize they may not be able to supply all of the data. 
• Gert-Jan: Need more German and French FMIS companies.
• Hannes: 365 may be interested; 2 companies in Austria. Need clear description of the effort and the outcomes. Biggest benefit comes to the food industry. Also need to motivate the farmer. This is more of a challenge than the actual technology challenges. Bringing in AEF would bring in more participants, but it is a very long process.
• Ivor: How can we move forward? Need some data format and protocol for message exchange. We need to reuse current standards/formats.
• Leon: Big effort but highly appreciated to the farmer.
• Ian: We see value. Looking for increased efficiency.