Page Comparison

Nick reviewed the work that had been done at the PMC level on the proposal for ratifying standards. You can see the proposal and discussion here .

Note that the Use Cases WG process has been split out because it is providing input to the other groups rather than creating standards so it has a faster track for ratification.

The group discussed the potential of an iterative loop during the comment period, in which time it is possible that consensus could be reached. If consensus is reached during review then this could be re-presented as such. Additionally, if there are material changes during the comment period then it might be necessary to provide a new version to the PMC board. Although this is more overhead it is important for the integrity of the standards.

So far on the GitHub pull request there have been comments from Glue42 and ScottLogic.

The purpose of this PR, which has been in discussion over the last several WGs, is to determine the approach for some use cases, e.g. from Thomson Reuters, Tick42 and Deutsche Bank, which call for more tightly coupled/strongly typed interaction between apps to be supported by the API.

The changes presented aim to provide a pathway for several approaches to interoperability, starting with a simple interaction with the opportunity for future upgrades to the connections providing richer functionality where needed.

The group went through the items in PR15. Nick highlighted that the standard is a common interface and is not meant to represent all functionality. It is the pieces that need to be standard to support interoperability. There was significant discussion, and some disagreement, around the definition and activity of a Desktop Agent, including around:

• Defining a Desktop Agent. For example, is OpenFin in and of itself a Desktop Agent? No, although it may offer one. A Desktop Agent is essentially the instance (and functionally may not be dissimilar from an app) that will negotiate interoperability.
• Desktop Agent(s) interaction with one or more applications. Is it a 1:1 interaction, 1:M, M:N? Discussion around conflating the question of different agents connecting (or standards between different agents connecting) with the aim of this group, which is creating a standard for the interface between an application and its agent.
• Glue42 is is working on a proposal and demo to show an alternative to how inter-platform issues can be handled.

Nick proposed that the Pull Request be merged, accepting this iteration on the spec proposal, noting that this does not mean ratification. He will subsequently raise PRs for the issues that Colin suggested. The group agreed.

Leslie (Glue42) will bring a counter-proposal to the working group as soon as it is ready.

There is a need to be moving towards ratification. If the group continues to be at an impasse, it will need to find the common set of things to agree upon and come to a vote. Fundamentally, differences can exist as different implementations but there needs to be agreement on what can be generalized with enough common ground to ratify something the group feels collectively good about; is simple enough for people to grasp and implement; and also covers the use cases.