Versions Compared

Old Version 6

changes.mady.by.user Paul Whitby

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Aitana Myohl

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Meeting minutes status: draft - pending review & approvalApproved (on 9/27/2019)

Table of Contents

Table of Contents
indent10px

...

NameOrganisationGithub ID (optional)

Paul Whitby

Deutsche Bank

Rob Underwood (Deactivated)

FINOSbrooklynrob
Aitana MyohlFINOSaitana16
Leslie SpiroTick42Former user (Deleted)Refinitiv
Rhyddian OldsJP-Morgan
Anton NikolaevDeutsche Bank



...

20
TimeItemWhoNotes from the Meeting
5 minConvene & roll call


Off-schedule meeting called to discuss the name change proposal of the Plexus program
10 minReview action items from previous meetings (see above)

All

Review and approve past meeting minutes:

20 15 minJuly Board Meeting: discussionAll

Container able to run FDC3 applications. Would mean a change of scope for the Plexus program and require consequential name change

Proposal was made in July. Change of scope document was circulated for review amongst participants in this program. 

Board meeting was interesting; there was considerably more push back than expected. Atmosphere was quite hostile from some board members. Instead of accepting or rejecting it, a proposal was made to give the program some time to work on the name change proposal.

25 minChartIQ: [JIRA] (CONTRIB-52) Secure Electron AdapterAll

Recent CONTRIB from ChartIQ.

Question is: 

  1. Is there any other feedback from the board or from FINOS about the outcomes?
    • Consensus from the board: the question is whether broadening the Plexus program scope is "putting the cart before the horse" in terms of proposing the name change before the CONTRIB came in
    • There was also some questions about how much buy-in there will be from other organizations
  2. If we accept the ChartIQ CONTRIB, does that mean we can proceed with the reframing of the program?
    • historically, the process should start from a problem being identified

Actions:

  • re-do proposal and figure out who's supporting it and why
  • do some backroom socialising
  • ask to push back deadline
10 minfinos-plexus.github.io repo
5 minProgress Towards 2019 Roadmap
  • Progress Towards 2019 Roadmap
  • Efforts to Drive Expansion in Base of Contributors
  • Efforts to Drive Expansion in Adoption
5 minHygiene
  • Adoption of Revised Standard POP
    • Unification of concepts of projects and working groups (everything is now a project)
  • What is the right taxonomy of Plexus projects?
    • Wiki:
      Image Added

      • Desktop Interop Working Group (Is this "plexus-interop" in metadata model?)
      • Desktop Interop API Working Group (not listed on FINOS website)
      • Promotion and Adoption Working Group (not in metadata model; not listed on FINOS website)
      • Interop Use Case Validation Working Group (not listed on FINOS website)

    • FINOS website:
      Image Added

    • FINOS Metadata (This is the master data, system of record):
      Image Added
5 minAOB & adjourn



Decisions Made

Action Items

Capture any actions that were identified here, and make sure they are also captured on the group's task page during, or immediately after, the meeting

  •  Redo the scope expansion scope (and figuring out who will support it, including and especially the banks) - Paul Whitby
  •