1min | Select Scribe for meeting | group | we need someone to minute the meeting Note on PMC meeting attendance The PMC has a closed membership, manages the program, voting on the business, and transferred discussion items to/from the different working groups A few attendees drop the call
|
30min | Onboarding and Membership process proposal | @Nicholas Kolba | proposal How do we define participation & membership? Saori: is it ok to contact people directly by email? >> aye, PMC agrees Google Groups – discussion on group privacy settings Frank: Google groups represents distribution lists. As members join the group, I ask for their permission to add them to the google group. Emails that are sent get published to that group. Anyone can email that google group. Only the owners of the group can add users to that list. In legacy groups the goal of Google Groups was to create transparency by making the data public. People can post new topics publically. Membership is private. Each group can decide if they want to be public or private Action: each WG owner to check permissions in their Google Groups
Membership Definition Proposal – Nick Review of Nick’s Membership Definition Proposal: https://finosfoundation.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FDC3/pages/195264513/On-boarding+and+Participation+Proposal Participants: there should be a human touch to onboarding, a welcome email sent and some questions asked (which company, interest in FDC3, etc) – goal is to get the community engaged and contributing Organizational participants: there is value in saying what it means for an org to be participating members and to have representative in those organizations. Should this be a privileged status? Should we look at participation metrics to establish status? We can participants to opt their organizations into FDC3 when joining. To establish FDC3 standards, we need organizations championing them. Status should not be used to self-promote commercial services. Committer: the role may be a little vague at the moment, but we want to show level of participation
|
Participants
Espen Overbye – OpenFin
Frank Tarsillo – IHS Markit
Gavin Lauchlan – JP Morgan Chase
Johan Sandersson – Factset
Jonathan Teper – JP Morgan Chase
Nick Kolba – OpenFin
Saori Fotenos – Thomson Reuters
Tim Kolecke – Citadel
Meeting Minutes
Use cases working group updates – Saori
Recently ratified as a WG under the FDC3 umbrella
Once we have a charter and objectives, Soari will send out an FDC3-wide communication asking for participation >> process confirmed by the PMC
Kick-off session in end of June
JT + Johan volunteered to help prepare for the kick-off, including working on the agenda, docs, and logistics
Reminder: goal of the use cases WG is document business use cases for interop, so the standards / tech groups can validate against them
Saori will request a webex from FINOS to be used for the WG (by emailing help@finos.org)
Johan recommends we announce the new WG to the broader FINOS >> PMC agrees
Note on PMC meeting attendance
The PMC has a closed membership, manages the program, voting on the business, and transferred discussion items to/from the different working groups
A few attendees drop the call
Participation & Membership
How do we define participation & membership?
Saori: is it ok to contact people directly by email? >> aye, PMC agrees
Google Groups – discussion on group privacy settings
Frank: Google groups represents distribution lists. As members join the group, I ask for their permission to add them to the google group. Emails that are sent get published to that group. Anyone can email that google group. Only the owners of the group can add users to that list.
In legacy groups the goal of Google Groups was to create transparency by making the data public. People can post new topics publically. Membership is private.
Each group can decide if they want to be public or private
Action: each WG owner to check permissions in their Google Groups
Membership Definition Proposal – Nick
Review of Nick’s Membership Definition Proposal: https://finosfoundation.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FDC3/pages/195264513/On-boarding+and+Participation+Proposal
Participants: there should be a human touch to onboarding, a welcome email sent and some questions asked (which company, interest in FDC3, etc) – goal is to get the community engaged and contributing
Organizational participants: there is value in saying what it means for an org to be participating members and to have representative in those organizations. Should this be a privileged status? Should we look at participation metrics to establish status? We can participants to opt their organizations into FDC3 when joining. To establish FDC3 standards, we need organizations championing them. Status should not be used to self-promote commercial services.
Committer: the role may be a little vague at the moment, but we want to show level of participation