Table of Contents

Date

02 Nov 2016

Attendees

Actions items from previous meeting

• Rob Koyfman to send Github repo identifiers to Former user (Deleted), so that he can take the internal CS legal steps
• Rob Koyfman: work internally with LLC engineers to determine where and why the Symphony app is circumventing the app-bridge API, and update the group
• Rob Koyfman: identify appropriate LLC engineers to attend future WG meetings, and let Former user (Deleted) and Peter Monks know (so they can be invited, added to the ML, etc.)
• Former user (Deleted) to generate docs from CS shim, and send to Former user (Deleted)
  
  • Former user (Deleted) to clear any IP hurdles then share with this WG
• Former user (Deleted) (with assistance from Peter Monks) run formal vote-via-email on "top down" (container first) vs "bottom up" (Symphony first) decision
  
  • Click here for the Foundation's voting rules

Agenda

Meeting notes

Background

In discussion at the group last week, it was suggested we make a formal decision between the approach for standardising the container API. We had been looking at a couple of different APIs (OpenFin and Electron) which are broad and would potentially cover a large number of requirements outside of those needed for Symphony. It was suggested this might be too wide and that we should go back to taking a “bottoms up” approach to standardising the container application interface, i.e. looking at the de facto requirements for the Symphony application first and finding the best API(s) to satisfy those requirements.
 
A straw poll on the call showed majority support for this bottoms up approach, but to formalise this decision I would like a vote from the WG members.

The Vote
Proposition: Do the WG members agree to take the “bottoms up” approach (as described above) to standardise the container API?

 +1 approve the proposition

-1 deny the proposition, because...

0 abstained, because...

Action items