2019-07-12 Meeting
Status: Approved (At 2019-7-26 Meeting)
Date/Time
Friday, July 12, 2019 at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Attendees
Name | Organisation | Github ID | FDC3 PMC Member |
|---|---|---|---|
Nicholas Kolba | OpenFin | nkolba | x |
Jonathan Teper | JPM |
| x |
Riko Eksteen | Adaptive | rikoe | x |
Tim Kolecke | Citadel | tkolecke | x |
Rob Underwood (Deactivated) | FINOS | brooklynrob | (foundation) |
Tosha Ellison | FINOS | toshaellison | (foundation) |
Aitana Myohl | FINOS | aitana16 | (foundation) |
PMC Committee Members Absent
Johan Sandersson
Neil Slinger
Frank Tarsillo (Deactivated)
Former user (Deleted)
Open Action Items
Discussion items
5 min | Roll call | All |
|
5 min | Review of previous minutes and open actions | All |
|
10 min | Review new Issues and PRs | Riko Eksteen |
(PR Screenshots)
|
5 min | WG cadence vote | All | Proposed: Move all WGs to Monthly on Thursdays targeting a window between 9am 12pm EST (up to the WG, API is 10 - 11:30, Use Cases is 11 - 12) . Currently, Use Cases is the 3rd Thursday, API is the 4th Thursday Proposal is for AppD on the 1st Thursday and Context & Intents on the 2nd. We can keep them at their current times (11am for AppD, 10am for Context) unless the WGs participants want to change that. |
5 min | FDC3 activation vote | All | Based on the email chain from Rob/Gab/Riko, finalise vote on whether FDC3 can move to activated status. Positive votes so far:
Activation checklist: Activation#RequirementsforActivation No votes against moving FDC3 to activated status. |
20 min | OKRs | All | Proposed: Demonstrate business transformation with significant adoption of FDC3 in 2019
Discussion on FDC3-UC WG effort to gather qualitative (i.e. getting quotes on the impact of these interop workflows, FDC3 NPS) and quantitative feedback (i.e., discrete KRs). Example cited was "number of interop workflows implemented", possibility of capturing FDC3 usage data in an anonymized way? Ensure a sustainable level of engagement with the community
|
15 min | Board Deck review | All | See slide HERE
for Q2 milestones, this is what I have as a first pass:
This is what we had last Quarter:
|
| AOB & Adjourn | All | Review and approve past meeting minutes (should be done at beginning of the meeting): |
Action items
Tasks and Asks
My answers to the questions posed to me:
What is the contribution threshold to put your copyright on the code header? (Whenever a new contributor makes a new contribution, should they be able to add their copyright to the NOTICE file if they wanted to)
The threshold should be low. Under copyright law generally, as long as the contribution is original to the contributor (i.e. not copied) and has "at least some minimal degree of creativity," the contributor has some copyright interest in it. Moreover, there is little harm in being "overinclusive," i.e. including the notices of contributors whose contributions are minimal.
Why has FINOS been inclined away from the FINOS legal entity being the copyright holder?
This could be interpreted either of two ways, so I'll answer both:
Why doesn't FINOS claim copyright by putting its own notice on the files? Because under the FINOS contribution policy, contributors retain copyright in their contributions. They license the contributions to FINOS under the broad, perpetual, non-exclusive license in the FINOS CLAs. And they license the contributions to the general public under the Apache License. Where FINOS itself contributes to a project, including by editing or organizing materials, it may hold a copyright interest in the collective work, but the individual contributions are never transferred to FINOS.
Why doesn't FINOS require assignment of contributor copyrights to the Foundation? There are several reasons for this. First, FINOS doesn't have to hold copyright in order to ensure that downstream licensees receive an appropriate license to the code under the Apache License. Second, using CLAs rather than copyright assignment is by far the more common practice among open source Foundations. Third, there is strong sentiment in the open source developer community against requiring copyright assignment, and FINOS doesn't wish to unnecessarily discourage contributions.
What is the relationship between portions of code and specific copyright holders. E.g., if line 10-20 was by contributor 1, line 5 was by contributor 2, and lines 30-40 was worked on by all of contributor 1, 2 and 3, to whom is the copyright assigned? To all of them jointly, or does copyright match contributions etc.
When a work is produced by multiple contributors, there might be multiple "layers" of copyright interest in the work, including in both the individual contributions ("lines of code") and in the collective work, as organized and arranged by an editor, maintainer, etc. Practically speaking, trying to keep track of who owns specifically what slices of a file with a long contribution history becomes an academic exercise; this is one reason we discourage file-level contributor copyright notifications. If an issue ever arises that requires diving into that level of granularity (which is unlikely to be necessary outside of litigation involving the code), the git history will be the best tool for this.
Can we add more context in the NOTICE even if it's duplicative of what's contained in the LICENSE and/README file?
Yes, it's fine to add contextual or clarifying information to NOTICE.