►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Call / 2021-09-29
Description
Inaugural call for Phase 4 OpenActive, focused on securing consensus on requirements for the Memberships proposal.
Call notes and slides can be found at https://w3c.openactive.io/meetings/2021-09-29-requirements-for-the-membership-proposal
A
A
So
the
purpose
of
this
call
really
is
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
aligned
on
our
understanding
of
what
the
requirements
for
memberships
are
and
that
we've
got
a
roughly
similar
conception
of
what
memberships
is
going
to
involve
and
what's
in
scope
and
out
of
scope
for
the
rest
of
2021
really
so.
The
conversation
today
will
be
mostly
about
requirements.
D
Hello,
martin
alvarez,
I'm
the
part
of
the
european
huawei
team
in
charge
of
some
standardization
activities,
but
I'm
here
following
your
activities
from
the
distance,
because
I'm
the
chair
of
the
open
track
community
group,
which
is
now
we
call
it
open
athletics
to
avoid
any
any
misunderstanding
of
the
name.
So
we
have
some
perhaps
some
overlaps
in
the
future,
because
we
are
standardizing
athletics.
A
E
F
H
A
I
Yeah,
I'm
a
developer
for
sports.
We
provide
league
and
venue
management
software
to
number
of
customers
around.
The
uk
recently
completed
an
implementation
of
the
open
booking
api
and
yeah
interested
in
the
membership
side
of
things,
because
we've
got
some
requirements
around
that
for
an
integration
with
mcr
active
and,
as
you
can
tell
I'm
losing
my
voice,
so
I
won't
hopefully
be
talking
much
on
this
score.
F
K
L
A
Membership
yeah
I'll
throw
in
there
that
nick
was
also
principal
author
of
most
of
our
specifications,
including
the
bookings
back
so
yeah.
The
involvement
is
fairly
deep
there
I
would
say
responsible
for
many
of
the
documents
we'll
be
looking
at
today:
ben
beavers,
hi,
I'm
ben
beavers.
I'm
a
group
development
director
for
everyone,
active
and
izzy.
O
A
A
A
However,
it
seemed
to
quickly
grow
more
complex
than
previously
envisaged.
This
started
off
as
a
github
issue,
which
became
extremely
long.
I
would
invite
anyone
who's
who's
new
to
the
call
to
take
a
look,
at
least
at
the
start
of
that
github
thread,
which
I
think
outlines
the
overall
scope
pretty
well,
but
this
has
since
evolved
into
a
fairly
lengthy
google
doc
proposal
for
for
what
membership
schemes
should
look
like
in
open,
active,
supporting,
mcr,
active
and
active
westminster,
and
it's
really
turned
into
three.
A
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
areas
of
focus.
The
first
is
customer
account
management
with
certain
aspects
of
that
excluded,
but
by
and
large,
managing
customer
accounts
issuing
barcodes
to
allow
those
customers
to
gain
access
to
sports
facilities
and
leisure
centers
and
then
finally
questions
around
pricing
and
in
particular
entitlements.
So
if
people
are
entitled
to
particular
discounts
because
they
belong
to
particular
demographics
or
live
in
a
particular
area
or
have
a
certain
membership,
how
that
pricing
would
work
out.
E
Nice,
okay,
let
me
just
try
and
see
if
I
can
bring
up
the
presentation.
Is
everyone
saying
presentation
now
yay
so
yeah?
As
tim
said
there,
I'm
digital
lead
for
mcr
active,
which
is
the
sport
and
azure
strategic
arm
for
manchester
city
council
and
most
of
you-
and
I
know
most
of
you
are
aware
of
the
of
the
project
that
we're
embarked
on
here
in
manchester.
E
But
tim
just
wanted
me
to
give
a
quick
overview
and
for
those
that
maybe
weren't,
as
as
aware
of
of
the
different
things
that
we're
trying
to
achieve
through
the
digital
transformation
that
we're
there
we're
currently
undertaking
and
to
set
the
scene.
The
key
challenges
that
we
were
trying
to
address
was
to
create
a
one-stop
shop,
in
essence
for
residents
to
find
physical
activity
and
whether
that
was
they
knew
what
they
were
looking
for
and
in
terms
of
a
squash
court.
E
They
could
go
to
one
place
and
view
all
the
squash
courts
in
the
city
and
or
if
they
were
looking
for
inspiration
they'd
be
able
to
find
that
in
a
website
that
had
robust
and
up-to-date
information,
and
so
we
look
at
open
data
to
facilitate
that
in
the
means.
So
we
pull
from
both
our
leisure
operators
and
from
a
number
of
ndbs,
and
we
also
built
a
provider
portal
that
allows
independent
organizations
in
the
city
and
I'll
branch
into
these
in
a
wee
bit
more.
E
So
this
is
just
a
quick
screen
grab
of
the
site
that
we
have
got
up
and
running,
and
you
can
see
there
that
we
have
an
activity
finder
for
residents
to
find
their
activities
in
their
local
area.
They
can
filter
by
age
by
distance
and
obviously
by
activity.
There's
a
whole
range
of
filters.
In
there
we've
got
get
involved,
which
is
different,
inspirational
things,
whether
they
want
to
volunteer
in
our
sector
or
find
walk-in
groups
and
social
walls.
E
So
it's
definitely
been
a
big
learning
curve,
these
last
12
months
in
terms
of
that
site
and
how
it
works,
in
particular,
the
activity
finder,
especially
when
it
comes
to
how
to
integrate
with
open
data
feeds,
because
it's
not
always
how
you
would
anticipate
it
and
again,
another
learning
cave
and
the
provider
portal
that
I
quickly
mentioned
earlier,
which
facilitates
independent
organizations
in
manchester
to
upload
their
activities
and
their
events.
And
it's
also
all
quality
assurance
online.
Digital
journey
for
quality
assurance.
E
So,
instead
of
manually
asking
our
partners
to
give
us
their
public
liability,
their
dbs
their
safeguarding
and
procedures,
they
upload
all
of
that
first
and
that's
then
checked
by
the
provider
officer,
who's
in
charge
of
that
relationship
and
and
once
they're
all
checked.
And
if
everything's
okay
they're
then
allowed
to
upload
their
activities,
and
they
have
one
of
these
marks
associated
depending
on
the
level
that
they've
gone
through
for
that
quality
assurance,
so
the
supplier
portal
does
two
things
for
us.
E
It
obviously
gives
us
a
really
robust
quality
assurance,
safeguarding
procedure
and
moving
away
from
the
manual
one
that
had
issues
front
and
center
with
it,
and
also
it
grows
our
content
on
the
site,
because,
whilst
open
data
fades
are
great,
we
all
know
that
that's
a
journey
that
our
sector's
on
and
so
a
lot
of
providers
still
don't
have
online
platforms
that
maybe
have
the
booking
technology
behind
to
facilitate
the
open
data
and
apis.
So
the
supplier
portal
allows
us
to
have
that
content
on
the
site
and
they
obviously
manage
it.
E
So
it's,
instead
of
what
again
you
guys
would
have
been
aware
of
as
well
is
traditionally
you
would
have
been
sent
a
spreadsheet.
Tell
me
everything
that's
happening
and
from
your
service
in
this
area
you
sent
enter
and
it's
out
of
date,
because
that
that
instructor
has
now
changed
the
day
or
they're
no
longer
getting
funding
for
it.
E
E
E
The
mcr
active
app
will
allow
us
to
obviously
issue
virtual
and
physical
token
or
membership
cards
or
barcode
really
to
our
users
and
as
well
as
allow
us
to
what
I'm
going
to
touch,
base
and
stuff
that
we're
working
on
next
year
around
jail,
fencing
and
pushing
of
notification.
So
if
the
user
has
the
app
going
and
it's
open
we're
able
to
obviously
push
notifications
to
say,
oh
you're
in
the
park
you
know,
park
run
happens
here
on
a
saturday
and
also
there
just
quickly.
E
E
The
answer
for,
and
certainly
I'm
not
saying
that
we
will,
but
we
will
look
to
to
introduce
some
pilots
next
year
around
that
and
just
very,
very,
very
quickly
and
our
we
are
just
about
to
embark
on
with
our
health
partners
in
the
manchester
local
car
organization
and
public
health
around
having
once.
Obviously,
what
I
just
went
through
is
all
up
and
running
and
we're
happy
enough
with.
E
And
so
this
is
the
solution
that
we're
looking
at
in
manchester
for
how
we
really
kind
of
address
that.
So
just
a
quick
nod
to
that,
because
I
am
conscious
of
times
and
so
why
we're
here
today
and
obviously
as
part
of
what
we're
trying
to
achieve-
and
we
are
looking
at
membership
integration
to
facilitate
a
lot
of
the
functionalities
that
I
just
touched
based
on
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
the
any
of
the
technical
bits.
E
I
know
nick's
on
the
call
and
can
pick
that
up
and
along
with
tim,
but
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
give
a
quick
overview
as
to
why
manchester
is
using
this
approach
and
and
really
kind
of
championing
it
and
for
us,
the
membership.
Integration
facilitates
quite
a
number
of
the
challenges
that
we
were
trying
to
overcome.
E
So
one
of
the
biggest
issues
that
we
had
in
manchester
and
I'm
sure
a
lot
of
us
is
across
other
local
authorities
is
residents-
would
have
to
give
us
their
information
over
and
over
and
over
again.
So
we
were
super
at
it.
We
would
get
them
to
sign
up
to
potentially
two
leisure
operators
to
access
all
the
swimming
pools
in
the
city,
but
equally,
if
they
wanted
to
go
to
our
holiday
camp
that
we're
running
in
the
park,
they'd
have
to
give
us
their
information
again.
E
If
they
wanted
to
go
to
the
thoughts
on
the
move
session,
they
were
running,
then
the
local
church
give
it
to
us
again,
because
we
all
had
these
little
schemes
and
silos
with
all
their
own
different
registration
formats
and
and
things,
but
it
was
all
the
same
information.
It
was
all
those
kind
of
key
five
name
address
date
of
birth,
gender,
ethnicity.
E
E
It's
all
the
touch
buttons,
it's
not
having
to
give
it
to
us
again,
fill
out
forms
left
right
and
center,
and
so
for
me
that
was
one
of
the
key
things
with
the
members
of
integration
and
standards
that
nickel
or
tim
will
go
through,
and
it
also
allows
them
to
manage
from
one
account
because
we
all
hate
it.
We
all
have
a
million
apps
on
our
phones
and
what
we
don't
want
is
a
resident
having
to
sign
into
multiple
accounts,
just
to
be
able
to
pick
physical
activity
in
their
area.
E
E
They
were
very
bespoke
to
the
two
systems
that
we
were
currently
dealing
with,
that
wouldn't
have
allowed
us
any
kind
of
skill
ability
of
our
scheme
or,
like
I
said,
future
proofing,
no
offense,
ben
and
stephen,
but
if
another
ledger
operator
came
into
this
into
the
city,
so
it
it
really
kind
of
you
know
it's
nice
ben.
I
have
the
hard
work
night
and
future
princess
and
for
for
down
the
line,
so
that,
in
a
nutshell,
nutshell
for
us
was,
and
what
are
we
trying
to
achieve
in
manchester?
E
E
E
A
I
think
I
think
in
the
first
instance
then,
maybe
because
nick
has
kindly
prepared
a
document
which
I
think
breaks
down
the
immediate
requirements
in
that
very
ambitious
vision,
and
we
can
go
through
those
point
by
point
and
validate
that
with
people
on
the
call.
But
if
it's
not
too
much
of
an
imposition,
I'm
going
to
look
at
laura
and
ask
her
if
active,
westminster,
broadly
aligns
with
that
presentation.
F
A
Q
Yeah,
I'm
obviously
coming
to
this
a
little
bit
late
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
the
ambition
and
stuff,
but
I
mean
we've
got
tens
of
thousands
of
different
types
of
memberships
and
all
of
those
very
on
hours
of
access
of
people
being
able
to
access
a
facility,
different
facilities
that
they
can
get
a
discount
on
other
ones.
They
can't
etc,
etc.
I
I'm
maybe
this
is
what
we're
coming
to
with
nick
is
that
part
of?
M
So
the
the
scope
is
not
here
anything
to
do
with
actually
joining
provision
of
memberships
for
for
direct
debit.
Anything
like
that.
This
is
just
about
those
those
membership
schemes
and
also
allowing
people
who
have
already
got
a
membership
whatever
that
membership
might
be
unspecified
to
make
bookings
using
the
membership
through
mcr,
active
or
other,
so
that
that
helps
that
we've
been
using
the
term
entitlements,
which
I
think
eugene
coined
previously
as
a
kind
of
way
of
saying,
an
entitlement
is
not
a
membership
as
a
direct
debt.
M
Q
I
think
it's
an
important
element
of
the
scope,
that
of
what
isn't
included,
because
I
think
you
know
I
mean
I
can
think
of
hundreds
of
off
big
memberships
or
you
get
a
discount
off
this
activity,
but
not
off
that
one
and
you
get
that
one
on
a
thursday.
If
yeah,
you
know,
if
you
turn
up
with
three
kids
in
a
you
know,.
Q
About
if
it's
just
purely
headline
rate
and
and
a
discount
off-
and
that's
all
we're
doing
that,
then
that's
the
input.
For
me.
It's
an
important
element
of
scope
that
we
need
to
be
really
clear
with
everybody
that
that's
that
that's
where
this
this
lies,
because
because
there
are
quite
a
lot
of
complexities,
as
I'm
sure
gll
find
as
well.
A
Yeah
sorry
used
to
just
to
pick
up
on
that.
So
I
mean
there
was
a
question
of
yes.
The
the
alignment
between
membership
in
the
sense
of
the
mcr
active
umbrella
scheme
and
membership
of
particular
institutions
participating
in
that
scheme,
so
the
question
of
restricted
access
actually
does
seem
to
be
relevant
that
if
the
participating
institution
is
publishing
data
which
actually
isn't
available
to
everybody,
because
they
might
have
a
restricted
institutional
membership,
that
does
seem
to
be
a
requirement
that
does
need
to
be
catered
for.
That
isn't
catered
for.
M
N
M
Is
that
is
a
good
because-
and
this
is
because
wayne
specifically
figured
that
out
on
the
last
call
we
had
on
this
in
2019-
that
that
was
a
gap
citing
you
that
wayne
as
noting
that
that
that
so
and
then,
therefore
it
was
incorporated
into
the
proposal
from
that
kind
of
recognition.
There
was
a
gap
there,
but
but
you're
100
right,
that's
not
in
the
top
line
requirements
that
we've
been
talking
about.
Q
M
M
How
would
you
describe
the
limit,
the
the
restrictions
on
a
specific
activity
and
and
something
that
actually,
I
know,
debbie-
might
already
have
a
view
on
this,
because
I
think
this
is
something
that
was
added
to
ows
debbie,
the
the
kind
of
adding
a
restriction
you
can.
You
can
put
free
text
in
there
and
we
in
the
examples
we've
used
from
wayne's
previous
comment.
It's
things
like
you
know.
You
need
a
gold
membership
to
book
the
session
or,
as
you
say,
need
a
gym
induction
to
book
this
session.
M
But
that's
the
text
it
doesn't
it.
Doesn't
it's
not
clever
enough
to
link
through
to
click
here
and
get
your
gym
induction
or
click
here
and
get
a
gold
membership?
The
assumption
is
that
you
can
navigate
to
find
out
whatever
that
is
through
through
other
means,
and
it
didn't
attempt
to
kind
of
address
those
pathways
at
where
it
is
at
the
moment.
Could
it
could
do,
but
it
doesn't
currently
do
that.
M
Okay-
and
I
I
don't
think,
that's
an
exhaustive
list,
though,
from
what
I
understand
from
conversations
with
gladstone,
I
think
there's
quite
a
few
different
restrictions.
You
can
add
to
a
membership
right.
I
might
be
wrong,
I
don't
so
I
don't.
If
we
start
enumerating
that
that
detail
it
might,
it
does
probably
a
lot
in
there
as
well.
A
A
Okay,
so
this
was
a
document
that
nick
wrote
up
in
consultation
with
various
parties
there,
including
msr,
active
and
and
active
westminster.
We
don't
have
representatives
from
all
of
these
organizations
on
the
current
call,
but
at
least
I
think
we
can
make
some
useful
progress
here.
I
will
attempt
to
outline
this,
but
I'm
anticipating,
interruption
and
welcoming
interruptions
from
from
nick
on
this
point.
A
So
this
this
refers
to
something
that
we
already
slightly
covered
earlier
with
with
that
that
mapping,
where
you've
got
a
broker,
which
would
be,
for
instance,
the
mcr
active
app
that
allows
people
to
log
into
that
and
make
use
of
their
existing
memberships
in
leisure,
centers,
already
participating
in
the
scheme.
So
the
requirement
for
their,
including
both
pay
as
you
go
and
pay
monthly
membership,
so
whatever
their
affiliation
that's
covered
and
who
are
who
have
we
been
joined
by.
A
So
scenarios
here,
a
local
authority,
wants
to
have
a
one-stop
shop
for
opportunities
in
their
region,
yeah,
that
seems
that
seems
to
be
kind
of
the
the
raison
d'etre
of
mcr
active
and
active
westminster
and
a
very
ambitious
scope
for
for
what
that
would
cover,
but
including
parks.
I've
just
learned,
however,
certainly
leisure
centers
would
be
yeah
the
obvious
first
place
to
to
unify
that
information.
A
M
M
The
example
with
playfinder
was
that,
for
example,
a
lot
of
people
use
playfund
for
paying
pay.
As
you
go,
bookings
pay
and
play.
It
might
be
that
someone
through
doing
that,
decides
to
get
a
membership
with,
for
example,
everyone
active
and
then
wants
to
continue
to
make
bookings
through
playfinder.
So
the
idea
is
that
that
allows
the
upsell
journey
from
playfinder
through
to
the
kind
of
memberships
of
of
the
operators
and
then
so.
M
The
same
thing
that
mcr
active
is
using
here
could
also
be
used
for
that
scenario,
which
is
obviously
totally
separate
to
a
local
authority
scenario.
Part
of
the
power.
Obviously,
of
these,
these
specifications
is
to
try
and
capture
more
than
just
the
narrow
use
case,
so
that
it
allows
for
wider
and
broader
innovation.
A
H
Yeah,
I
think
it's
I
mean
from
a
gladstone
perspective.
I
don't
think
we've
been
shy
at
kind
of
sharing
some
of
the
concerns
with
regards
to
the
overarching
scope
and
every
you
know,
every
call
there
seems
to
be
different
things
added
to
it,
and
so,
in
all
honesty,
that's
that's
our
real
concern
and
has
been
since
the
start
is
that
this
ultimately
becomes
unachievable,
because
it
expands
so
much
that
we
we
don't
get
to
a
point
where
we're
able
to
deliver
anything.
H
The
level
of
you
know
returns
that
people
are
looking
for,
and
I
think
our
intention
or
our
what
we've
been
looking
to
see
throughout
this
is
just
to
kind
of
just
to
break
it
down,
to
break
it
down
into
smaller
components,
so
that
we
can
actually
get
it
out
there
and
get
it
into
people's
hands
and
start
using
it
and
start
to
see
what
some
of
the
value
is.
So
yeah
we're.
H
A
H
I'm
just
managed
yeah.
I
think
it
goes
back
to
ben's
initial
point
of
being.
You
know
as
clear
on
what
is
going
to
be
excluded,
at
least
in
these
early
steps
as
what
is
included,
because
I
think
that's,
I
think
that's
also
one
of
the
you
know
the
gaps,
that's
kind
of
crept
in
as
as
we've
as
we've
gone
on
and
one
of
the
contributing
factors
to
why
we've
seen
so
much
scope,
green.
A
H
N
A
Be
very
clear
about
about
the
requirements.
I
would
anticipate
that
there
will
be
a
sort
of
review
phase
after
this
call
that
this
document
that
that
you're,
seeing
on
your
screen
or
you
were
seeing
on
your
screen,
is
going
to
need,
comment
and
then
refinement,
and
then
we
can
deliver
a
checklist,
a
recipe
yeah.
N
Q
Yeah,
that's
gonna
happen
at
some
point,
yeah
agreeing
with
claire.
I
just
I
guess
that
definition
of
a
membership's
included
here
or
not-
and
it
seems
like
we've
delved
immediately
into
memberships
on
in
the
first
point,
and
it
goes
back
to
it.
It's
it's
just
massive
for
us
as
an
organization
to
manage
and
and
we're
going
to
have
to
do
one
hell
of
a
lot
of
we've
either
got
to
have
some
very
under
some
amazing
tools.
Q
I
don't
understand
behind
it
or
we're
going
to
have
to
we're
really
going
to
have
to
simplify
how
how
we
do
it.
If
we're
going
to
try
and
do
yeah
too
much,
I
I
think
we've
got
to
say
what's
step
one
on
this
on
this
journey
and
let's
get
that
one
delivered.
I
think
if
we're
trying
to
do
steps
five
and
six
we're
we're
gonna
we're
gonna,
we're
not
gonna
get
to
step.
One.
A
M
Sorry
tim,
is
it
worth,
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
so,
there
are
people
in
the
school
that
have
different
parts
of
the
journey
of
thinking
about
this.
I
I
I
should
say
that
my
role
in
in
putting
the
documents
together
and
things
like
that,
it's
just
been
trying
to
reach
as
people
are
saying,
the
kind
of
lowest
possible
amount
of
work
that
has
been
needed
to
do
this.
Believe
it
or
not.
M
I
actually
push
back
on
this
document
even
existing
for
18
months,
because
of
the
reasons
that
claire
and
blaine
have
both
very
clearly
clearly
outlined.
We
don't
need
any
more
scope.
Let's
just
get
the
thing
done.
The
document
has
arisen
because
of
a
constant
pushback
that
without
this
feature
in
there,
at
least
in
a
minimal
form,
this
just
wasn't
going
to
be
viable.
A
A
I
think
I
think
it's
important
just
to
get
the
get
the
requirements
laid
out
and
then
we
can
have
a
conversation,
maybe
in
a
subsequent
call
about
which
requirements
are
just
impossible
to
support.
If
there's
a
conversation
to
be
had
about
which
ones
are
absolutely.
If
we've
got
one
group
of
people,
I
think
predictably
saying
impossible
or
very
difficult
in
another
group,
saying
absolutely
necessary
and
required.
A
You
know
that
conversation
has
to
happen,
but
I
think
we
need
to
have
it
at
that
kind
of
high
level
before
we
we
go
into
questions
of
why
particular
solutions
may
not
be
viable.
I
realized
that
a
lot
of
that
exploratory
work
has
been
done
with
with
other
organizations,
but
I
think
we
need
to
just
keep
it
high
level
for
the
moment
because
yeah
I
don't,
I
don't
yeah
I'll
restate
nick's
point
in
another
way.
I
don't
think
anything
on
here
is
idle.
You
know
it
hasn't
been
a
hasn't
been.
A
A
A
G
Do
we
actually
have
like
a
clear
idea
of
who
the
target
audience
that
we're?
I
know
it's
kind
of
broad
that
it's
everybody,
but
if
we
actually
nailed
down
to
who
who
we're
most
looking
at
this
going
towards,
because
obviously
technology
and
different
approaches
would
be
for
different
types
of
people.
A
G
G
F
Tim
I'll
do
my
best,
so
one
of
the
key
objectives
of
mcr
active
is
to
help
people
who
are
currently
inactive
to
get
active
and
part
of
their
kind
of
big
offer
or
their
big
offer
in
in
that
space
is
around
this
kind
of
one-stop
shop.
So
I
guess
you
know
the
research
that
actually,
I
think,
was
led
by
sport.
England
around
well,
people
want
to
get
active,
but
they
don't
know
how
to
they
don't
know
where
they
can
get
active.
F
We
need
to
make
sure
that
it's
as
easy
as
possible
for
them
to
find
out
where
they
can
play
tennis
or
do
boot
camp
in
the
park
or
whatever
it
might
be
part
of
that
kind
of
approach
is
what
this
website
in
manchester
is
trying
to
achieve.
It's
all
around
making
it
as
easy
as
possible
to
find
out
where
and
how
to
get
active
and
book
onto
those
activities.
F
F
But
then
it
is
also
just
the
sort
of
leisure
offer
in
the
city.
So
you
have
this
kind
of
inactive
population,
but
more
broadly
they
they
want
mcr
to
be
the
brand
that
people
identify
with
around
sport
and
physical
activity
in
the
city.
So
it
is
this
kind
of
broader
resident
offer
as
well
that
they're
that
they're
kind
of
you
know
seeking
to
engage
with
every
every
member
of
you
know:
everybody
that
lives
in
manchester,
but
inactivity
is
kind
of
a
big
target
and
for
them,
okay,.
G
Yeah,
I
I
think
so
it's
just
trying
to
think
cause.
I
think
a
lot
of
the
people
on
this
school.
We're
used
to
memberships,
being
kind
of
the
the
life
and
soul
of
the
systems
that
we're
providing
and
those
people
use
that
they've
got
their
they're
aware
of
their
brands
that
they
use
already
they're
aware
of
that
facility.
So
it's
just.
How
are
we
looking
to
extend
that
and
what
is
the
overarching
goal
of
you
know?
G
F
F
F
And
that's
where
they'll
be
using
the
data
and
insight
that
they're
getting
back
from
you
know
the
likes
of
us
at
four
global
to
understand
well
kind
of
what's
working
in
those
communities.
What
where,
where
are
the
gaps?
What
could
we
do?
More
of
so
there'll
be
some
more
targeted
work
as
well
around
engaging
with
those
populations.
C
So
therefore,
we're
going
to
continue
selling
our
memberships,
as
we
had
previously,
with
the
exception
of
the
pay-and-play
memberships,
which
will
be
driven
towards
the
mcat
activity
finder
portal,
where
customers
can
then
take
out
a
pay-and-play
membership,
they're
just
casual
engages
in
sport,
and
then
they
can
share
that
data
with
glf.
They
wish
if
they
would
then
wish
to
use
the
jira
leisure
center.
So
that's
maybe
just
help
clarify.
A
A
0.3
allowing
a
customer
to
join
a
membership
scheme
providing,
for
instance,
free
swimming
across
a
number
of
sellers
and
then
walk
into
that
seller's
venue
and
be
recognized
by
the
entry
system.
So
that's
yeah
combining
the
access
requirement,
I
suppose,
with
the
data
munching
requirement,
data
combination
requirement.
P
That's
related
to
whether
that
membership
is
is
a
cost
or
not,
and
how
the
costs
would
be
handled
because
there's
a
lot
of
cases
where
councils
offer
a
discount,
but
it's
a
an
annual
fee
or
something
like
that:
they're
not
always
free.
So
there
needs
to
be
a
case
of
dealing
with
the
fees
that
are
due
as
part
of
those
memberships
being
applied,
as
well
as
the
ones
that
are
applied
with
no
fee.
If
that
makes
sense,.
A
Right,
okay,
yeah.
I
think
I
think
that
aspect
of
it
is
is
out
of
scope,
but
I
think
it's
worth
noting
that
explicitly
as
out
of
scope
that
how
you
yeah,
how
you
get
to
that
point
of
having
a
particular
membership
category,
isn't
something
that's
canvased
for
in
the
document,
but
yeah
we
can.
We
can
add
a
note
saying:
that's
not
what
we're
talking
about
yeah.
P
Q
A
P
My
understanding,
it's
all
down
to
the
type
of
card
reader
that
you've
got
or
device
reader,
that
you've
got
on
your
turn
style.
Some
will
read
multiples
of
different
types
of
barcode,
qr
code,
etcetera
and
some
will
not.
We've
quite
quickly
realized
that
a
lot
of
the
ones
that
we've
got
installed
on
our
turn.
Styles
will
not
read
mobile
devices
very
well,
for
example,
so
publishing
a
qr
code
or
a
barcode
on
a
mobile
device
and
expecting
those
to
work
isn't
always
as
seamless
as
you
you'd
like
it
to
be.
L
P
A
Right,
okay,
I
think
we'll
just
need
to
note
that,
as
a
you
know,
I
suspect
there's
not
much.
We
can
do
there
beyond
make
another
scope.
Note
saying
you
know
this:
this
is
a
limitation
of
what
what
can
be
delivered
digitally,
but
we
can
add
that
to
the
as
a
point
of
discussion
for
the
requirements
document,
I
suppose.
M
A
Q
I
guess
there's
gonna
have
to
be
a
means
to
be
able
to
tell
who
gets
a
discount
and
who
doesn't
I'm
not
sure
how
that
works.
I
mean
we
obviously
do
through
this
membership
that
we
alluded
to.
You
put
something
on
the
system
that
says:
they've
got
this
before
they
get
that.
So
I
don't
know
how
that's
worked
through,
but
yeah.
A
A
Facilitate
booking
at
these
concession
prices,
both
via
walk-in
and
online,
which
includes
showing
concession
prices
at
the
brow
stage
of
the
broker's
online
booking
journey.
So
this
is
reflecting
a
lengthy
conversation
that
occurred
in
previous
calls,
because
there's
a
difficulty
in
that
the
data
publisher.
A
But,
of
course,
when
that
list
is
is
originally
published,
it
will
usually
be
the
case
that
there
is
no
knowledge
about
who
the
actual
customer
is.
So
the
display
price
might
not
be
the
price
that
the
user
is
actually
entitled
to
and
in
fact,
would
end
up
paying
at
the
end
of
the
flow,
and
this
is
explicitly
declaring
that
it
is.
It
is
in
scope
to
be
displaying
that
price
right
at
this.
P
I
mean,
I
guess
it's
just
making
it
clear
that
that's
only
ever
going
to
be
possible
if
the
user's
logged
in
in
some
way
or
another,
it's
not
going
to
be
possible
to
identify
the
individual's
price
without
them
being
logged
in
and
then
being
recognized
by
the
system
and
producing
the
and
considering
all
the
things
that
go
on.
In
the
background
to
say
that
person
is
entitled
to
that
discount.
A
A
Yeah,
I
feel
like
that's.
Actually
one
of
the
advantages
is
that
it
would
it
would
implementing
these
features
would
eliminate
that.
Oh
actually,
I'm
already
a
member
of
this.
Somehow.
You
know
I'm
already
entitled
to
this
through
a
membership
that
I
already
have
yeah,
creating
that
information
scaffolding
to
make
that
possible
yeah.
So
yeah
again,
maybe
just
a
maybe
a
slight
clarifying
note
on
there
too
I'll
make
that
clear.
Sure.
C
A
P
I
mean
it'd
be
nice
to
have,
but
we
don't
even
have
that
within
our
own
software
at
the
moment
where
you
can
switch
between
accounts
and
things
like
that,
so
that
solution's
not
readily
available
from
a
godstone
perspective
across
all
of
their
current
applications.
So
there
is
complications
and-
and
we've
we've
kind
of
built.
The
solution
and
andrew
and
claire
can
jump
in
any
point.
P
Correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
we've
worked
with
them
to
build
the
solution,
but
it's
not
working
in
our
environment,
but
there
was
a
lot
of
considerations
that
to
go
in
to
that
to
say
who,
out
of
that
group
of
people
could
book
for
that
individual
could
pay
for
that.
Individual
could
see
that
individuals
bookings
just
from
a
gdr
or
gdpr
perspective.
I
guess
you
can't
fully
expose
the
information
about
an
individual
without
somebody
else's
permission.
P
A
M
Yeah,
so
the
interesting
thing
about
this
area
of
the
proposal
is
that
it
is
underspecified,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
that
the
I
think
that
the
major
systems,
as
debbie's
already
said
that
are
talking
about
implementing
this
haven't.
Yet
I
got
the
capability,
but
I
think
maybe
all
will
soon,
or
at
least
at
least
many
will
most
will
soon
have
that
capability
in
some
form.
M
So
having
this
item
on
here
is
I
mean
this,
isn't
something
that
has
been
specified
and
there's
different
ways
of
doing
it
that
have
been
considered.
But
if,
if
this
is
an
opportunity
to
coalesce
around
an
idea
of
how
this
might
work
with
the
organizations
that
are
already
thinking
about
it
or
have
have
already
built
those
features
that
that
that
could
be
useful
and
certainly
something
that
that
obviously,
as
marie
mentioned
is
family
booking
and
I'm
sure
laura
would
agree,
is
key
to
to
the
customer
experience.
K
M
You
would
think
that
would
be
a
simple
solution,
but
within
the
software
we're
just
talking
about
that
turns
out
to
be
booking
on
behalf
from
one
account
on
behalf
of
another
turns
out
to
be
a
complicated
issue
within
the
software,
but
I
think
that's
that's
something
that
is
being
worked
on.
That's
what
you're
saying
yeah.
A
Yeah
this
this
suggests
to
me
that
this
might
be
a
separate
proposal,
then
that
that
maybe
this
needs
to
be
hived
off.
If
there's
already
discussions
underway
and
the
complexity
is
large,
I
think
we
need
to
clarify
yeah
how
much
how
much
this
is
seen
as
a
hard
requirement
and
whether
this
is
actually
something
that
that
enters
under
separate
discussion
because
yeah,
I
think
it
would.
It
would
be
unfortunate
if
we
have
if
we
tried
to
solve
this.
A
I
think-
and
that
hinders
you
know
the
previous
six
points
getting
getting
hit
just
to
yeah.
Just
just
to
make
clear.
I
anticipate
that
there's
going
to
be
a
comment
process
after
this
call.
Sorry,
I
should
have
said
this
right
at
the
top.
The
point
of
this
call
is
not
to
resolve
all
of
these
differences.
It's
really
just
to
see
where
everybody
is
identify
the
differences,
and
then
we
can
follow
up
with
resolving
them.
A
M
A
This
would
be
a
scenario
where
I
suppose
you
said
you
know:
I've
I've
booked
three
of
these
with
the
same
organization,
I'd
like
to
get
a
membership
now
say
gll
or
whatever,
and
then
and
then
paying
for
that,
so
the
current
envisaged
flow
would
be
once
you've
made.
That
decision,
maybe
you're
provided
with
a
link
into
the
membership
flow
of
the
providing
system,
but
it
wouldn't
be
something
that
needs
to
be
supported
by
the
specification
itself,
that's
handled
already
by
by
internal
systems
any
thoughts
or
comments
there.
A
Not
facilitating
management
of
the
entire
operator
account
so
yeah.
This
means
that
the
scope
is
limited.
If
you,
if
you've
booked
through
the
mcr
active
app,
and
you
want
to
change
something
that
you've
booked
in
the
mcr
active
app.
You
can
do
that.
If,
however,
you've
booked
the
if
you
booked
through
another
channel
as
you've,
gone
through,
say
the
booking
systems
website
and
made
an
alteration
there.
You
can't
change
that
through
the
mcr
active
app,
you
have
to
go
through
the
original
channel
that
you
through,
which
you
booked
in
theory.
A
P
P
Those
sorts
of
things
I
think
they
need
to
be
listed
and
said
whether
they're
in
scope
or
out
of
scope.
As
part
of
this
as
well,
I
mean
some
of
our
online
solutions,
our
own
online
solutions
don't
allow
move
and
cancel
for
everything,
and
therefore
I
wouldn't
expect
us
to
be
able
to
cater
for
everything
in
this
solution
either.
P
Yeah,
there's
still
cases
that
where
they
have
to
contact
us
to
make
those
changes
so,
for
example,
refunds
if
you
were
trying
to
cancel
an
activity
that
had
been
paid
for,
there's
no
online
refund
method
for
that
activity.
Therefore,
they
can't
do
that
online
and
I
don't
know
anybody
else
feels
about
that,
but
I
wouldn't
want
to.
P
A
Yeah
I
mean
it
can
be
the
case,
the
minimal
restriction
there
were
that
this
would
be
optional
functionality
that
it
would
be.
You
know
we
would
specify
how
it
would
work
if
that
functionality
were
supported,
but
you
could
be
open,
active
compliant
without
having
that
functionality.
That
would
be
one
way
of
dealing
with
it
and
then
another
would
be
to
say:
cancellation
is
out
of
scope
entirely.
We
can
hash
that
out
further
after
the
call,
I
think
in
comments
on
the
document
and
so
on
and
so
forth
or
in
subsequent
calls.
A
P
N
P
N
A
A
A
M
Yeah
exactly
that
the
difference
between
all
memberships
being
pricing
available-
and
this
is
basically
to
I
think,
debbie's
earlier
point.
The
idea
of
displaying
specific
pricing
for
all
members
is
is,
is
just
not,
I
don't
think
technically
feasible,
at
least
not
within
the
architecture
that
we
have
in
the
in
the
current
specifications.
M
So
it's
not
about
trying
to
ensure
that
you
can
have
exactly
accurate
pricing
for
every
member.
However,
having
accurate
pricing
for
the
12
different
discount
levels
that
are
in
mcr,
for
example,
or,
however,
many
there
are
in
westminster
is,
is
feasible
and
that's
what
the
proposal
is
to
have
in
scope.
A
M
It's
probably
worth
saying
that
it's
all
pay
and
play
members
that
will
be
catered
for
the
browse
stage,
and
I
think
the
anticipation
here
is
that
most
people
that
are
pay
and
play
would
probably
come
through
this
this
channel,
because
that's
where
they
receive
the
discount
most
people
who
are
not
all
but
most
people
who
are
monthly
pay
monthly
members
will
go
through
the
operators
channels
directly
because
they
have
that
relationship
with
the
operator
and
they'll
use
the
apps
and
things
like
that.
So
we're
not
anticipating.
M
A
M
M
C
All
pre-paid
members
nick
not
just
direct
debit
but,
as
nick
pointed
out,
we
we
we're
expecting
the
relationship
between
any
prepaid
member
to
be
between
the
member
and
glo,
not
necessarily
the
member
and
mgr
actives,
although
of
course
there
will
be
plenty
of
signposts
into
the
msr
active
activity
fund.
If
gl
prepaid
members
are
looking
to
book
outside
of
a
glr
location,
so
of
course
we're
supporting
that
wholeheartedly.
But
that's
not
the
key
focus,
so
we
don't
know,
but
that's
what
we
anticipate.
A
Service
providers
are
happy
with
that
perspective
on
it.
That
makes
sense,
I
suppose
yeah
it's
possible
to
imagine
user
flows,
or
that
doesn't
happen.
But
if
that's
seen
as
a
marginal
case,
then
then
it's
a
marginal
case.
Does
anyone
else
have
proposals
for
further
declarations
out
of
scope?
What
are
some
further
things
that
are
worth
explicitly
noting
as
not
being
addressed
by
the
by
this
proposal?.
K
Q
A
Difficulty
with
writing
the
out
of
scope.
Thing
is
yeah.
Of
course,
it
could
be
in
theory,
infinitely
long,
infinity,
minus
seven
and,
of
course,
the
context
for
what
gets
declared
out
of
scope
is
things
that
were
considered
that
were
then
discarded
but
yeah.
We
can
certainly
look
at
increasing
that
list
to
make
sure
it's
crystal
clear
to
a
newbie
to
the
system.
P
A
P
A
A
P
Yeah,
there's
no
mention
of
a
membership
having
to
be
allocated
at
that
point
to
receive
discounts
that
an
individual
is
entitled
to
so
with
mcr,
for
example,
there's
a
whole
scheme
within
that
area
which
says,
if
you
fit
into
this
category,
you
get
this
things
for
this
price.
If
you
fit
into
this
cattle,
we
get
things
for
this
price
and
that
can
own.
P
Those
pricing
can
only
be
determined
by
a
subscription
being
allocated
which
we've
had
discussions
with
with
nick
about,
and
sometimes
that's,
multiple
subscriptions
that
need
to
be
allocated
so
the
in
scope
and
out
scope,
elements
of
member
creation
and
subscriptions
needs
to
be
included
in
this
and
operators
that
read.
It
need
to
understand
that
well,
brokers.
I
suppose
those
subscriptions
are
going
to
be
specific
to
every
every
client
or
every
offering
that's
happening.
They're,
not
they're,
never
going
to
be
the
same.
A
Yeah,
okay
yeah.
I
suspect
that
one
will
bear
further
discussion.
Is
it
certainly
in
principle
possible
to
design
a
system
that
will
accommodate
that,
certainly
from
a
specification
level?
It's
easy
because
you
say:
oh
here
are
some
slots
that
information
would
fit
into.
But
how
implementable
that
is,
is
a
different
question.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
So,
in
terms
of
we've
got
we've
got
10
minutes
in
terms
of
moving
forward
with
this.
The
action
on
me
is
to
update
the
document
with
the
various
comments
that
have
been
made
so
far,
that
is
to
say
the
the
requirements
document,
and
I
then
to
circulate
that
with
all
of
you.
Well
it'll
be
a
public
circulation
but
I'll
I'll
ping.
A
You
all
specifically
about
it
to
make
sure
that
your
concerns
can
be
voiced
and
represented
in
relation
to
it,
and
then
we
move
towards
some
kind
of
resolution.
Hopefully
we
can
just
do
all
this
asynchronously
and
coalesce
around
the
document.
It
could
be
that
we
need
to
follow
up
with
specific
calls
in
this
forum,
but
at
any
rate,
I
will
look
after
the
secretarial
functions
and
get
something
out
to
everyone
by
the
end
of
the
week.
A
M
It's
probably
worth
me
saying,
debbie
at
this
point,
that
the
documentation
that
this
is
the
high
level
requirements
document
and
there's
a
document
that
sits
underneath
this,
which
is
something
like
40
pages
long.
That
includes
much
of
the
stuff
that
we've
previously
discussed
and
that
some
folks
will
already
be
more
intimately
aware
of
because
of
those
kind
of
other
conversations,
and
so
so
yeah.
M
Absolutely
it's.
The
intention
of
the
requirements
document
wasn't
to
capture
all
of
that
detail.
It
was
kind
of
trying
to
capture
the
more
high-level
business
points,
but
if
there's
anything
that
you
think
should
be
taken
from
the
yes,
what
tim's
showing
the
kind
of
broader
proposal,
which
I
know
that
debbie
you've
had
input
on
previously
and
and
we've
had
previous
discussions
with
the
organizations
that
are
listed
in
that
at
the
top
of
the
document,
so
yeah.
M
A
Well,
I
think,
frankly,
there's
there's
work
to
be
done
in
the
requirements
document,
obviously
from
the
conversation
we've
just
had.
So,
let's
try
to
focus
attention
on
that
at
the
moment,
however,
that
said
we
can
add
in
a
link
to
the
broad
proposal
so
that
if
people
have
got
questions
about
how
you
know,
if
they're
broadly
in
agreement
with
the
requirement,
but
they've
got
doubts
about
implementation,
that
information
is
there
and
they
can.
They
can
comment
there
as
well.
A
Q
Is
that
going
to
give
the
community
a
better
result
quicker
than
the
added
complication
of
the
membership
stuff
which
for
me
is,
is
far
more
complex
and
looking
at
that
you
know
at
a
later
date,
but
I'm
not
you
know,
minded
to
say
well.
This
is
going
to
take.
You
know,
you
know.
If
it's
only
going
to
take
another
two
to
two
minutes,
then
yeah
we
might
as
well
do
all,
but
I
have
a
feeling
it
might
take
quite
a
lot
more
to
do
the
membership
side.
M
Represent
david
at
this
point
because
he
said:
do
it
all
at
the
same
time?
Didn't
he
sorry,
but
I
I
can
tell
you
the
reason
for
so
so
many
on
this
call
have
already
implemented
the
first
half.
As
you
say,
the
booking
spec,
I
think
maybe
gladstone
and
everyone
active,
might
be
one
of
the
only
ones
on
the
call
that
haven't
in
fact
done
that
work.
M
Q
A
Yeah
I
feel
like
I
don't
personally
have
a
comment
because
it
really
depends
on
the
system
and
on
the
business
model
that
you're
that
you're
running.
You
know,
if
remember,
if
it's
hard
to
disentangle
membership
from
everything
else
that
your
system
does,
then
it
makes
sense
to
take
it
out
of
whack.
If,
if
that's
fairly
modular,
you
know,
maybe
maybe
other
options
are
open
to
you,
but.