This issue is opened to begin drafting a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the role of the Technical Working Group (TWG) representative who serves as a liaison to the OBO Foundry Operations Committee (OFOC).

The goal is to clarify expectations and define best practices for how the TWG representative should communicate and coordinate with the OFOC. For example:

• What should the requirements be for this role? The site currently lists the following: (1) strong Python skills, (2) some level of proactivity, and (3) experience with ODK/Docker. Are these still the relevant and expected qualifications for the position?
• What kinds of updates or issues should be brought to the attention of the OFOC and how? I would suggest that routine updates from the TWG—such as pull requests (PRs) for ontology metadata updates or changes to the member list—may not need to be explicitly presented during meetings, though they could be recorded in the agenda or minutes if relevant.
• What mechanisms should be used to flag items for discussion (e.g., specific labels such as attn: technical WG and attn: OFOC meeting)? To my knowledge, only one issue has ever been labeled with both attn: technical WG and attn: OFOC meeting, so it may not be the bestway to do it,

Any existing practices, expectations, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.