Skip to content

Proposal: Contribution workflow from WG meeting demos / discussions to charter outcomes #6

Description

@anajsana

Context

The Agentic AI to Empower OSPOs WG is working to include lightweight show-and-tell demos with group discussions as part of its bi-weekly meetings. These sessions are a valuable way for members to share real-world examples, workflows, tools, prompts, experiments, and lessons learned around using agentic AI to support OSPO work

To make sure these discussions translate into tangible WG outputs, this issue proposes a lightweight contribution workflow that connects meeting topics / demos with the outcomes defined in the WG charter

Proposal

For each WG meeting that includes a demo, use case, or discussion, the WG chairs could capture whether the topic may contribute to one or more of the WG’s intended outcomes. if the topic has potential value beyond the meeting itself, the WG can identify a lightweight follow-up path to turn it into a contribution

Suggested contribution paths

Depending on the type and maturity of the content shared, the WG could route contributions to one or more of the following places:

1. Awesome OSPO repo

Add a new section dedicated to agentic AI resources (for example: Agentic AI workflows, prompts, and tooling)

This section could include:

  • Example workflows for OSPO use cases
  • Prompt patterns
  • Tools and prototypes
  • Public demos or repositories
  • Reusable templates
  • References to relevant open source projects

2. todogroup.org guide page

When the WG identifies enough recurring patterns, lessons, and examples, these could be developed into a new TODO Group guide that could cover:

  • Common OSPO use cases for agentic AI
  • Workflow examples
  • Governance and validation considerations
  • Risks and limitations
  • How to evaluate whether a workflow is ready for production use
  • Recommendations for OSPOs starting with agentic AI

3. TODO Group blog

WG members or chairs could also turn their learnings into blog post entry in TODO Group website when the content is more narrative or event-based

For instance:

  • What OSPOs can learn from early agentic AI experiments
  • Common patterns from WG demos

Lightweight workflow

Step 1: Capture the topic

After each meeting, the LF PM (or volunteer in the WG) captures a short summary of the demo or discussion in a separate issue. This could include:

  • What was shared
  • Which OSPO problem it addresses
  • Whether links, repos, slides, prompts, or examples can be shared publicly

Step 2: Map to charter workstreams

To help clarify whether the topic is an example of where agentic AI is being applied, evidence of how mature a use case is, or input into how OSPOs can address safety, reliability, ect. The chairs can map the topic to one or more of the following workstreams (using the related issue opened previously):

  • OSPO agentic AI use cases
  • Use case maturity
  • Adoption assessment and safeguards

Step 3: Identify the contribution path

The LF PM or chairs can suggest one or more contribution paths:

  • Add a workflow, prompt, tool, or example to the Awesome OSPO repo
  • Draft a TODO guide on agentic AI for OSPOs
  • Draft a TODO blog post summarizing learnings
  • Keep the topic in meeting notes only until it is more mature or there is contributor capacity

Step 4: Invite opt-in contribution

The LF PM or chairs can invite the presenter or WG members to opt in to a small follow-up contribution.

For instance:

  • Add one resource link in the repo
  • Contribute a prompt example
  • Co-author a blog post
  • Provide quotes
  • Validate whether a proposed pattern reflects their experience

No presenter or WG participant should be expected to produce polished content by default

Step 5: Review and publish

Before publication or merge, chairs or WG participants who volunteer as reviewers can check that the contribution is:

  • Aligned with the WG charter
  • Clear about the maturity level
  • Careful about risks and limitations
  • Useful to OSPO practitioners
  • Not presented as a universal best practice unless sufficiently validated

Suggested roles

  • Presenter: Shares a demo, workflow, prompt, tool, or use case during the WG meeting. The presenter is not expected to turn the demo into a polished contribution unless they want to.

  • LF PM: Helps coordinate the process, track possible follow-ups, connect topics to the charter outcomes, and support contributors with the right repository or contribution path

  • WG chairs: Help assess whether a topic is aligned with the WG scope and charter outcomes

  • Contributor/Reviewer: any WG member who volunteers to help turn a topic into a contribution (This could be as small as opening a PR, drafting a paragraph, adding a resource link, or helping review content) and/or provides feedback on a proposed contribution before it is merged or published

Open questions

  • What minimum level of review should be required before a workflow, prompt, or tool is listed as a WG-informed resource?
  • Should blog posts reflect individual member experiences, collective WG learnings, or both?

Review Team

@todogroup/chairs-aiagents-wg

Metadata

Metadata

Type

No type

Fields

No fields configured for issues without a type.

Projects

No projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions