Versions Compared

Old Version 8

changes.mady.by.user Tosha Ellison

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Nikolay Ganev

Saved on

Key

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

Date


Attendees

NameOrganisation
Nicholas Kolba

...

Openfin
Saori FotenosRefinitiv
Tim KoleckeCitadel
Rob Underwood

...

FINOS
Tosha EllisonFINOS

Goals

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1minSelect Scribe for meetinggroupTosha Ellison
10 minOther FINOS Governance itemsgroup

Nicholas Kolba met with Aaron Williamson and Rob Underwood (Deactivated) re: governance.  Here were the minutes from that meeting: 

  • Minutes Embargo
    • 2 days
    • Only available to WG members (Confluence group) then made public
      • Automatic process if possible, otherwise admin access for committee/PMC leads
    • ACTION: Aaron to raise INT for INFRA
  • Standards Ratification
    • If not, amend the POP to set out explicit voting rules for standards
    • ACTION: Aaron to attend next FDC3 PMC meeting
    • Proposal:
      • Notice-and-comment period
      • WG decides whether to revise
      • N&C for any revisions
      • Ratification by WG and PMC
    • ACTION:
      • Aaron to review PGP & POP re: revising POP
      • Aaron to draft revision to POP
    • Process not spelled out in POP
    • Generic voting rules sufficient, plus ratification by PMC?
    • Role of PMC & other WGs in approval of WG-ratified standards
    • Parking lot: communications re: why we're different from a standards development organization
  • FDC3 Badging
    • Prevent bad-faith/inconsistent use
    • Foundation needs to own the trademark to register & enforce
    • Should comply with PTO requirements for certification marks to be registered & enforceable
    • Aaron: Ought to be a certification mark for FDC3 compliance

Commentary from the meeting:

  • Minutes embargo
    • FINOS will investigate the feasibility of and work involved in implementing a 48 hour minutes embargo and will report back to the group on options. (Action with Rob.)
    • If there is a significant amount of work involved then the group should re-visit the importance and decide if it is worth the effort.
  • FDC3 Badging
    • There is still some work to determine what the certification badge means, how to use it consistently and how to ensure it is not used purely or largely for self-promotion. Neil and Nick have an open task around definition of certification and welcome feedback from the group.
    • It should be clear that this is compliance badging and not simply a badge to say that you are an FDC3 member.
20 minGovernancegroup

decide on process for ratifying standards.  

Proposed outline:

  • Proposed standard raised by WG
    • by consensus
    • by majority vote if consensus can't be reached (good faith effort)
  • Proposal Published on Confluence or Github (depending on WG)
  • Proposed standard presented at next general meeting
  • Mailing Group set up for Proposal comments
  • 2 weeks comment period from community
  • PMC ratification
    • by consensus
    • by majority vote if consensus can't be reached (good faith effort)
  • Ratified standards should be versioned and published on confluence

For Use Cases, the process is simpler:

  • Proposed standard raised by WG
    • by consensus
    • by majority vote if consensus can't be reached (good faith effort)
  • Ratified use cases should be clearly marked and published on confluence

Commentary from the meeting:

There are still a few things to work out including

  • Where proposed standards get documented - this needs to be a place where people can comment without having to be in the meeting.
  • This can be tricky as some members can't comment on GitHub and some can't even post to Confluence.
  • FINOS will look at the options for this and report back to the group. (Action with Rob)
  • Given that ratification of use cases will be more frequent there may be no need to ratify these by the PMC, working group ratification may suffice. 
20minAOBgroup

...