Minor stylistic updates

docs/events/wg_workshops/2023-12-05-december-meeting/index.md

@@ -1,9 +1,17 @@
 # UK TRE Community meeting - December 2023
 
-:Date: [Monday 5th December 2023 13:30](https://arewemeetingyet.com/London/2023-12-05/13:30/UK%20TRE%20Community%20meeting%20-%20December%202023#eyJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL2x1Lm1hL3VrdHJlZGVjZW1iZXIifQ==)
+:Date: Tuesday 5th December 2023 13:30-17:00
 :Slides: [**INSERT ZENODO LINK**]
 :Recording: https://youtu.be/LbxLZudqjOA
 
+```{toctree}
+:maxdepth: 0
+:hidden: true
+
+lightning-talks
+breakout-sessions
+```
+
 ## Background
 
 ​The UK TRE Community is a community of over 200 people that has grown organically over the last year for anyone interested in TREs, including researchers, operators, information governors, managers and more, from all sectors and disciplines.
@@ -14,13 +22,11 @@
 
 ## Agenda
 
-This agenda will be continuously updated as more sessions are confirmed.
-
 | Time          | Agenda Item                                  |
 | ------------- | -------------------------------------------- |
 | 13:30 - 13:45 | Welcome and intro                            |
-| 13:45 - 14:30 | Keynote + discussion                         |
-| 14:30 - 14:45 | Community updates                            |
+| 13:45 - 14:30 | [Keynote + discussion](#keynote)             |
+| 14:30 - 14:45 | [Community updates](#community-updates)      |
 | 14:45 - 14:55 | Break                                        |
 | 14:55 - 15:00 | Intro to breakout session 1                  |
 | 15:00 - 15:45 | Breakout session 1 [(see below)](#session-1) |
@@ -32,11 +38,10 @@ This agenda will be continuously updated as more sessions are confirmed.
 ### Keynote
 
 A talk by the Community Management working group on the latest developments, funding and plans for the community.
-This will be followed by dedicated time to ask questions and discuss any proposals.
 
 #### Summary
 
-The talk summarised discussed why the UK TRE Community exists, and the plans for the community for the next 4 months.
+The talk discussed why the UK TRE Community exists, and the plans for the community for the next 4 months.
 
 The community considers itself to be a connecting force in the already very active and energetic UK TRE space, helping projects and teams in bringing their work to the wider community, achieving consensus and moving towards a shared approach to TRE provision across the UK's 4 nations.
 
@@ -65,14 +70,15 @@ _A chance for anyone in the community to share quick updates with everyone on th
 #### SDEs, TREs etc - terminology and definitions working group introduction
 
 _Pete Barnsley & Madalyn Hardaker_
+
 **Contact**: [Madalyn Hardaker](mailto:[email protected])
 
 Pete advertised a new working group to be formed called `SDEs, TREs etc - terminology and definitions: A clear lexicon for the community's architecture`.
 
 There will two open sessions in January:
 
-- Tuesday 9th January 2pm-3pm
-- Wednesday 17th January 3pm-4pm
+- [Tuesday 9th January 2pm-3pm](https://crick.zoom.us/meeting/register/u5Mtf-yoqzooH9zP9q2fzeQ1qMM_Jh_yzC6s)
+- [Wednesday 17th January 3pm-4pm](https://crick.zoom.us/meeting/register/u5Erd-2srzMqGNITfSFEUvx4MilT5Ji6ov8i)
 
 To cover topics like:
 
@@ -91,8 +97,8 @@ Pete advertised a new working group to be formed called `The citizen and their i
 
 There will two open sessions in January:
 
-- Tuesday 9th January 11am-12pm
-- Wednesday 17th January 10am-11am
+- [Tuesday 9th January 11am-12pm](https://crick.zoom.us/meeting/register/u5csc-iqpjguGdUmSzXqcvhC2c1MgX6cEh0q)
+- [Wednesday 17th January 10am-11am](https://crick.zoom.us/meeting/register/u50ldu6srzguHdfvRBxuwRoJn8VTS7yBV78W)
 
 To cover topics like:
 
@@ -111,8 +117,8 @@ Pete advertised a new working group to be formed called `An architecture for ext
 
 There will two open sessions in January:
 
-- Wednesday 10th January 10am-11am
-- Tuesday 16th January 2pm-3pm
+- [Wednesday 10th January 10am-11am](https://crick.zoom.us/meeting/register/u5cuceGhrzMrH9EPh3tFZiRoPPxrsN277MZJ)
+- [Tuesday 16th January 2pm-3pm](https://crick.zoom.us/meeting/register/u5cqcu6hqDojE9J7SchkzeUpqjOwRQ-Vh3cN)
 
 To cover topics like:
 
@@ -126,6 +132,7 @@ Plan is to have present at the March meeting, and have a first outcome of a whit
 #### Researcher passports
 
 _Emily Jefferson_
+
 **Contact**: [Loki Sinclair](mailto:[email protected]) and [Fergus McDonald]([email protected])
 
 There may be funding from UKRI for researcher passports.
@@ -135,6 +142,7 @@ The team would like to work with teams to see what would be helpful in this area
 #### AWS Research Engineering Studio
 
 _Simon Li_
+
 **Contact**: [Simon Li](mailto:[email protected])
 
 AWS are revamping their TRE offerings. They have a new open-source product "Research Engineering Studio" which replaces https://github.com/awslabs/service-workbench-on-aws

docs/events/wg_workshops/2023-12-05-december-meeting/workshop-automated-output-checking-coi.md

@@ -2,7 +2,9 @@
 
 **Leads**: Jim Smith (University of the West of England), Jackie Caldwell (PHS)
 
-## Summary
+## Proposal
+
+### Summary
 
 The session is intended to give an over view of the Community of Interest on automated risk assessment.
 This naturally includes the risk assessment of AI models, since this is not something that can be done manually.
@@ -12,19 +14,21 @@ The aim is to:
 (2) make some proposals about how we plan to move forward on this alongside UK-TRE,
 (3) to get feedback from people present about and how they would like to se the community develop and work
 
-## Preparation
+### Preparation
 
 No required preparation beyond an open mind!
 
 If people would like some perspective on where the project has evolved from, it might be useful to skim-read the first 5-6 pages of [the SACRO project's final report](https://zenodo.org/records/10055365)
 
 But **please note** this Community of Interest has a broader remit than just SACRO - for example, by design we include projects such as DataShield, as well as other approaches for assessing ML privacy leakage.
 
-## Target audience
+### Target audience
 
 No specific target audience in mind - anybody interested!
 
-## Summary
+## Session
+
+### Summary
 
 THe workshop explored projects already exploring these issues, what the priorities of the community should be, and how to align everything already happening in this space.
 
@@ -33,7 +37,7 @@ ReBOT, Reducing Barriers to Outputs from TREs.
 
 Next steps include setting up a Jisc mailing list for the community, and a simple accessible guide, either written or video.
 
-## Raw notes
+### Raw notes
 
 - Start of a community of people looking at these tools
 - Some projects have started tackling issues: DataShield, ACRO, GRAIMatter, SACRO
@@ -51,7 +55,7 @@ Next steps include setting up a Jisc mailing list for the community, and a simpl
   - [Handbook on Statistical Disclosure Control for Outputs](https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/app/uploads/thf_datareport_aw_web.pdf)
   - [ICO AI Toolkit](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/artificial-intelligence/guidance-on-ai-and-data-protection/how-do-we-ensure-lawfulness-in-ai/)
 
-### Next steps
+#### Next steps
 
 - Create new JISC mailing list
 - Create simple accessible guide, either written or video

docs/events/wg_workshops/2023-12-05-december-meeting/workshop-manual-output-checking.md

@@ -2,7 +2,9 @@
 
 **Lead:** Rachael Williams (MHRA)
 
-## Summary
+## Proposal
+
+### Summary
 
 This workshop will bring the community together to brainstorm strategies and tools for streamlining manual output checking in TREs.
 
@@ -13,21 +15,23 @@ Participants will brainstorm effective techniques for optimising this process, i
 
 By the end of the workshop, it is hoped that participants will be equipped with practical insights to enhance the speed and accuracy of manual output checking, ultimately improving the overall research workflow.
 
-## Preparation
+### Preparation
 
 Please bring your experience, ideas, and questions, around what works and what doesn’t in the world of manual output checking, such as checklist development, collaborative workflows, and quality assurance measures.
 
-## Target audience
+### Target audience
 
 All involved in manual output checking – both from a policy and procedures perspective, and with hands on experience.
 
-## Summary
+## Session
+
+### Summary
 
 The room discussed how manual methods of output checking can be connected to more automatic methods, for instance SACRO, and how organisations can transition from purely manual methods to more automated ones.
 
 Tips were also shared on how to make manual checking simpler.
 
-## Raw notes
+### Raw notes
 
 - SACRO provides a set of drop in tools that researchers use alongside R or Stata - and at the stage they want to create an output they type "acro". It will then run checks and produce an output - highlighting if there are potential issues. Sometimes the automated checks won't apply - and an exception request can be submitted.
 - For machine learning models there are a number of things that can be checked. The gap (where work is ongoing) is how to apply the methods for traditional methods to machine learning models. A pool of expertise is being built in this area.

docs/events/wg_workshops/2023-12-05-december-meeting/workshop-package-allow-lists.md

@@ -2,7 +2,9 @@
 
 **Lead:** Jim Madge (The Alan Turing Institute)
 
-## Summary
+## Proposal
+
+### Summary
 
 The [packages repository](https://github.com/uk-tre/packages) was created recently as a place for TRE operators to share their decisions on packages allowed in their TREs.
 
@@ -13,16 +15,20 @@ In the workshop we'll discuss adding your allowlists to the repository, making i
 
 We hope that sharing our decisions like this will encourage us to be honest and confident about our security and to benefit from using the data.
 
-## Preparation
+### Preparation
 
 Attendees are encouraged to look at [the repository](https://github.com/uk-tre/packages) beforehand and bring ideas to the workshop.
 
 For example, you might want to add your own organisation, you might want to propose a change to the schema, you might want to add tooling to create, modify or analyse the lists.
 
 A good output would be to open a pull request or issue suggesting improvements.
 
-## Target audience
+### Target audience
 
 TRE builders and operators with an interest in managing packages in TREs.
 
 The session will be quite technical - the repository currently uses JSONSchema and Python.
+
+## Session
+
+This session did not take place.

docs/events/wg_workshops/2023-12-05-december-meeting/workshop-researcher-passports.md

@@ -2,11 +2,13 @@
 
 **Leads:** Loki Sinclair (HDR UK) & Fergus McDonald (DARE UK)
 
-## Summary
+## Proposal
+
+### Summary
 
 The purpose of the session is to get a sense from the TRE Community – primarily those running and operating SDEs/TREs – that if a nationwide service were available to verify the “Safe People” criteria would that be beneficial to SDE/TRE operators? If so, what are the requirements for such a service? We would also like to understand the appetite for supporting single sign on across TREs/SDEs.
 
-## Preparation
+### Preparation
 
 We’d encourage community members to reflect on the following questions:
 
@@ -41,15 +43,15 @@ We’d encourage community members to reflect on the following questions:
     And finally...
 - Would you be interested in working with us to provide requirements and test a researcher passport solution?
 
-### Reading:
+#### Reading:
 
 - Brophy, R., Bellavia, E., Bluemink, M. G., Evans, K., Hashimi, M., Macaulay, Y., McNamara, E., Noble, A., Quattroni, P., Rudczenko, A., Morris, A. D., Smith, C. and Boyd, A. (2023) “Towards a standardised cross-sectoral data access agreement template for research: a core set of principles for data access within trusted research environments”, International Journal of Population Data Science, 8(4). doi: 10.23889/ijpds.v8i4.2169.
   - [Publication](https://ijpds.org/article/view/2169)
   - [Template agreement](https://zenodo.org/records/8256235)
 
-#### Extracts from the [DARE UK Phase 1 Recommendations](https://zenodo.org/records/7022440):
+##### Extracts from the [DARE UK Phase 1 Recommendations](https://zenodo.org/records/7022440):
 
-##### Federated identity and user authentication standards
+###### Federated identity and user authentication standards
 
 There is a need to identify – in collaboration with stakeholders from across the landscape – and drive forward the adoption of a common user authentication protocol by infrastructure providers.
 Conceivably, this would need to be coordinated and overseen by UKRI itself, as it has the appropriate remit to act as such an authority.
@@ -61,7 +63,7 @@ The existence of modern industry and community standards of user authentication
 These existing standards should be leveraged as the basis for user authentication to allow for maximum interoperability at a national and international level.
 As user authentication is a crucial component of a national TRE standard, stakeholders also highlighted the need to support different forms of identity verification and have logging and auditing embedded across the system.
 
-##### Researcher accreditation
+###### Researcher accreditation
 
 A key requirement highlighted by stakeholders has been the need for a streamlined approach to researcher accreditation.
 While there are a number of existing training modules for sensitive data handling (for example, those provided by ONS), many of these trainings are duplicative without allowing for equivalence or mutual recognition between modules.
@@ -72,18 +74,20 @@ Providers should aim to offer a consistent researcher experience across data acc
 Training could be made portable across TREs through standard accreditation for researchers acting as a TRE ‘passport’.
 The Digital Economy Act, 2017 (DEA) already works as a passport in some respects, with shared accreditation existing across certain TREs.
 
-##### Private sector and international researcher accreditation
+###### Private sector and international researcher accreditation
 
 Currently, private sector researchers can apply to become accredited researchers under the DEA, and therefore apply for access to data held within DEA-accredited research environments once accredited, via the same process as academic researchers.
 In the context of UKRI-funded research, private sector researchers can also participate in sensitive data research in the public good as part of consortia led by a UKRI-approved research organisation.
 However, there was widespread feedback from stakeholders engaged with during DARE UK Phase 1 that improving the ability for private sector researchers to collaborate on sensitive data research is important.
 Participants of the DARE UK public dialogue wanted sensitive data to be made securely accessible to private sector organisations and did not see a need for data access requirements to differ for these organisations, as long as the research is motivated by public benefit over financial profit and there is transparency throughout the research lifecycle (see Chapter 3: Demonstrating trustworthiness).
 
-## Target audience
+### Target audience
 
 TRE operators and/or information governance professionals (as related to the requirements for approving researcher access).
 
-## Summary
+## Session
+
+### Summary
 
 It was highlighted how resource intensive the current manual researcher approval process at UK biobank is, and how an autonated system would help with this.
 
@@ -93,7 +97,7 @@ There was a question of whether an independent body needs to exist to accredit t
 
 Further discussions centred around processes to interrogate validity of researcher records, how to record 'untrustworthy' researchers, and how to accommodate different levels of permission for different researchers, depending on how sensitive the project they are working on is
 
-## Raw notes
+### Raw notes
 
 - UK Biobank working with additional biobanks in pipeline (international perspective additionally challenging)
 - 6 FTE managing the overall workload of researcher approval

docs/events/wg_workshops/2023-12-05-december-meeting/workshop-satre.md

@@ -2,7 +2,9 @@
 
 **Lead:** Chris Cole (University of Dundee)
 
-## Summary
+## Proposal
+
+### Summary
 
 After extensive community engagement often in conjunction with UK TRE, the first version of the SATRE Specification was launched in October.
 It is by no means finished, but it is now stable and ready for use.
@@ -12,7 +14,7 @@ SATRE was created quickly and there will be parts that can be improved.
 
 Today is a chance to find out more of the continuing plans for SATRE within the UK TRE Community, contribute and ask questions.
 
-## Preparation
+### Preparation
 
 If you’re not already familiar with the SATRE Specification please have a look at it here:
 https://satre-specification.readthedocs.io
@@ -22,21 +24,23 @@ We also have two videos for everyone to view and feel free to share with your fr
 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auExNHEGwcc
 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzUU5ljII0Q
 
-## Target audience
+### Target audience
 
 Users, researchers, implementers of TREs and of course any public members who wish to help support the transparency and openness of the project.
 
-## Summary
+## Session
+
+### Summary
 
 SATRE was introduced to the room, before the idea of a SATRE working group was discussed, and how it could align with ongoing work in the UK TRE community.
 
 Alignment between UKSA and SDE accreditation was also discussed, as well as organisations carrying out SATRE evaluation.
 
 Next steps focused on a January meeting for a working group next steps, with a focus on helping other orgs evaluate themselves
 
-## Raw notes
+### Raw notes
 
-### What is SATRE?
+#### What is SATRE?
 
 - DARE UK funded project
 - Focus to be a community project
@@ -76,8 +80,6 @@ How do SDE Accreditation framework from UKSA and SATRE fit together?
 
 - And how do the UKSA/NHS conversations fit?
   - Anyone know how those are going?
-- X
-- X
 
 Thoughts/comments on SATRE evaluation?
 
@@ -88,7 +90,7 @@ Thoughts/comments on SATRE evaluation?
 - The SATRE pointing system could have subsection SATRE-PPI scoring how many of the public requirements are being met
 - Consensus there is a lot of value in having evaluation shared and exploring how others have scored but also process that goes into evaluation.
 
-## Next steps
+### Next steps
 
 - Book a time in January for next meeting
 - Focus on evaluations with other groups