Metrics - Feature Branch

[schnuerle]

Explain pull request

This PR is to see what changes between the Metrics feature branch and the dev branch, and prepare it for merger once it's ready.

Is this a breaking change

• No, not breaking

Impacted Spec

• agency
• policy
• provider

Additional context

PRs #486 and #487 were merged to a 'feature branch' in the MDS repo so we can see how it fits into the larger spec, allow the community and staff to do PRs against it, merge other related PRs into it, and see how it will fit into dev when it's ready with this PR.

[schnuerle]

Here are the relevant notes from the WG Call last week.

Metrics

• See previous presentation on this
• Authorization should be the same as Agency, eg JWT.
• Scenarios:
  • Cities can serve API to expose aggregated report data to trusted parties: eg, departments with their city, researchers.
  • Cities can serve API to provide data back to Providers to ensure alignment on counts for billing, enforcement, policy alignment.
  • Providers can serve API to cities. Bird asked for this previously. Note this would not be a replacement for /trips. (In addition, Special Groups can be used for this.)
• Need to add the above clarifications to the proposal, including who hosts the file in which scenario.
• Add not saying this does not replace the requirement for disaggregated data, but it may solve some of the same use cases.
• Cities can opt into the Metrics endpoint from Providers
• Need to take this conversation to other OMF committees. Will present to Privacy Committee at meeting next Wednesday. Will discuss at WGSC Checkpoint next Friday.

[whereissean]

@schnuerle I combined the requested updates to Metrics in a new PR #594 against this branch.

[schnuerle]

Still to do:

1. Add beta tag and link in section of main page
2. Figure out k-anonymity values
3. Add revised special groups language.

[schnuerle]

Proposed revision of this language from our WG discussion, drafted by @joshuaandrewjohnson1 at Spin:

"Other special group types may be added in future MDS releases as relevant agency and provider use cases are identified. When additional special group types or metrics are proposed, a thorough review of utility and relevance in program oversight, evaluation, and policy development should be done by OMF Working Groups, as well as any privacy implications by the OMF Privacy Committee."

Welcome feedback on this wording.

Updated here

[schnuerle]

Beta feature language added as section on main Metrics spec page.

The only punch list item left is research and recommendations on changes to k-values.

[schnuerle]

I'm going to make changes based on the city and WG discussions, removing the provider scenario and special groups.