Page Comparison

Rob recapped some of the recent conversations around documentation and described the aim of the document circulated, which is to give the FDC3 site a more comprehensive, complete and informative feel now that there are V1.0 standards ratified. This is important as it is one of our first major releases within FINOS. In future, this will also have wider remit than just FDC3 and likely used as a template of sorts for other programs.

Notes and discussion included:

• Rob noted that the plan is to use the Wiki going forward to manage deliveries, including a specific go-live checklist and other materials.
• Rob started with an overview of the analysis around information architecture including looking at personas, the type of information needed and an initial gap analysis.
• This included evaluating target personas: Consumers, Contributors, FINOS Community, Others (first time visitors, evaluators, etc.) and the different information they may need (e.g. describing business value, access to the standards, information on how it all fits together)
• Gab walked through the information architecture, proposing what data could reside in the different locations (FDC3 micro-site, Wiki, GitHub, FINOS website). He also covered how this maps back to target personas and who should be responsible for the documentation.Image Added
• Frank asked if the persona of Contributor for GitHub is correct and suggested that it should also include consumers, e.g. for the people who actually pull the spec. The group agreed and will introduce another persona, perhaps “evaluator” or “consumer technical”.
• Nick pointed out that another channel to think about is NPM and Frank suggested we generalise to published repositories.
• Gab walked through the interconnectivity between different locations of information. Saori suggested adding a consume connection from the Wiki to GitHub.
• Gab noted that there are certain expectations for a 1.0 release and it should meet specific criteria and quality levels in order to fulfil the “released” status as laid out be the FINOS community handbook. Link here.
• Initial documentation gap analysis has been completed and compiled into a documentation readiness assessment, including the content to be produced, who should produce it and the priority (in the form of MoSCow - must, should, could have)Image Added
• Frank asked how me make FDC3 consistent as a machine as the material gets created by different people at different times. For example, when we say code sample, does this need to be structured and look the same across all examples.
• Nick queried whether all of the separate standards should be packaged into one single FDC3 standard, which prompted discussion around compatibility within and across the standards across all streams as well as naming convention.
• Looking at the variables of quality, time and effort to implement the proposal, Nick suggested taking some time to productize this to a high quality level - potentially still complete in Q1. He didn't see this as a blocker to progress on the standards since the people doing initial implementations have already been involved. The group agreed on this approach and will take the timeline discussion offline.
• Overall feedback on the proposal was positive and FINOS and the FDC3 PMC will work together on specifics of the delivery plan.