2018-10-19 Meeting

1) NPM mechanics, 2) docs and docs platform (and what needs to get written to finish), 3) what's on https://finos.org and https://fdc3.org and how that points to the doc library, 4) reference / example implementations / SDKs, etc. --> everything need to truly release FDC3.

1.) Activities required around NPM mechanics, including namespacing, are understood. Mao is rebranding npm.js organisation to release finos.org so that packages can be released on the FINOS org space. Work and tasks will be distributed.

2.) Covered in previous section.

3.) No major discussion but Rob pointed out that FINOS will continue to work on how the various sites and repositories fit together.

4.) Question raised of when the standard is released to the wider public and all work around documentation is done, will there also be exemplars, reference implementations, SDKs, etc. Nick commented that while there is no time to discuss details on this call but that those are things required for success and in some cases they existing or at lest there are beginnings. They do want to decouple these from the standards themselves.

There will be more discussion on mailing lists.

We have upcoming PMC votes on Intents and API.  Where are we with AppD and ContextData?  What are the next steps for Use Cases?

There are API and Intents proposals that are currently in the comment period of the ratification process. API was presented for comment on October 11 with two week period ending Oct 25. So far no major objections raised. Minor feedback has been raised and addressed in pull requests (e.g. naming but not functional changes).

Nick queried the process for approving the standards, specifically if it can happen by email, given the next PMC meeting won't be until November. FINOS confirmed that this is acceptable. The group agreed to conduct an email vote on 29th October to formally ratify both the API and Intents standards.

Espen provided an update on the Intents ratification process, which was that they had addressed small things like typos with no other comments or feedback. He also noted that the initial standard for Intents they started with a baseline.

AppDirectory - Frank wasn't on but Nick updated that they are close to having a vote and expect this within the next couple of meetings.

Context Data - Tim provided an update and will propose a vote for Monday next week (22 Oct). Some minor changes have been addressed in PRs already.

Use Cases - As of the 18th the group agreed the way they would present the approved use cases to other working groups. An individual has been identified from the Use Cases WG to present all relevant use cases to a specific WG. There will be an opportunity for the WGs to pre-read the use cases. (Kat for API, Leslie for AppD, Johann for FO, Saori for Context, Espen for Intents, Tom for Voice)

whats the policy for good community behavior around press releases and other publicity using FDC3 branding?  Should we have a specific policy that deters abuse of the brand and resulting fragmentation and confusion?

Comments/discussion included:

• It's important to avoid confusion around multiple standards
• Press releases that mention FDC3 should be run by the PMC. 
• While no one can stop press releases there should be policies to help promote fair and reasonable practices among the community.
• There may also be a distinction between press releases, blog posts and what is published on the FINOS website itself.
• Key areas of concern are press releases and use of branding on other websites.
• FINOS has (as do many foundations) trademark and IP policies and will distribute this to the PMCs and to the wider organisation if necessary. (Action for Aaron Williamson.)
• In the case of FDC3 the trademark hasn't been transferred to FINOS yet but agreement with Nick that it should be.
• There needs to be clarity on what participants can and cannot do. This also touched on the recently defined "active participation".
• There may need to be some element of consequence for participants who are not being upfront and found to be promoting their own interests over the interests of the community as this creates a real risk of fragmentation.