Date

Attendees

Goals

Lockdown standards ratification

Outstanding Action Items

Determine best, member accessible, repository for proposed standards to be hosted (Rob Underwood (Deactivated) with input from Maurizio Pillitu)
Compliance: set up embargo period for minutes before publishing ( Maurizio Pillitu w/ input from Aaron Williamson; see associated JIRA, INT-223, as well)
Create FINOS - FDC3 certification badge (Next step is for trademark for FDC3 to be owned by FINOS – Aaron Williamson and Nicholas Kolba to sort this out)
- Only after the trademark is settled, Rob Underwood (Deactivated) or Aaron Williamson can engage with a FINOS contracted designer
Discussion and develop proposal for in person WG meeting (Nicholas Kolba / Rob Underwood (Deactivated))
Flesh the certification criteria (Nicholas Kolba & Neil Slinger)
Meetups - Sep or Oct in NYC (likely NYC for October on 10/3; London in November during/after OSSF)

Discussion items

Time	Item	Who	Notes
1min	Select Scribe for meeting	group	we need someone to minute the meeting
39 min	Lockdown standards ratification	group	Nick proposed to the group that we live edit Standards Ratification Process Saori: I don't think the use cases need to be proposed at meeting; they can be progressed at each meeting Discussion proceeded to discussion on the proposed voting procedure on use cases within the Use Case WG. Saori contextualized that this was voting just specific to the use cases approval process (implication that this is not necessarily the voting procedure/voter criteria that should be used for a wider group) Nick: My concern that is the administrative overhead of this is too complicated and if things won't just sort them out without this rule. Rob mentioned that: Eventually we may have votes with hundreds of ppl voting, so may want to have the precedent now around qualified voters JT: said that when you reject, you have to also have a reason Do we want Notes from Aaron W re voting for reference and consideration: Here are my thoughts on voting procedure for working groups. Generally, any voting procedure is fine so long as it clearly defines: What is the outcome being voted on Who is eligible to vote A clear time period during which votes may be cast How to cast a vote The quorum (if any) required for a binding vote The threshold required for a vote to pass Here are some options for 2 - 5: Who is eligible to vote Anyone who has attended X out of the last Y meetings Anyone who attended the meeting where the issue was discussed and the vote called Anyone who is subscribed to the WG mailing list (but beware heckler votes/uninformed voters) A clear time period during which votes may be cast During the meeting where the vote is called For X days following the announcement of the vote at a meeting or over email How to cast a vote "Yea/Yes/Approve/Agree" or "Nay/No/Disapprove/Disagree" aloud during meeting "+1" (approve), "-1" (disapprove), or "0" (abstain) over email or Symphony chat The quorum required for a binding vote No quorum; simple majority of votes cast during voting period A majority of the people eligible to vote The threshold required for a vote to pass A majority of votes cast A number of votes equal to a majority of eligible voters A specific number of votes I'd say the least complicated route is to announce each vote via an email to the mailing list, allow a week or two for votes to be cast, require voting via email, and make the threshold a majority of votes cast. However, if there is concern over disengaged or bad-faith voters, they should consider a minimum participation requirement for eligibility. Discussion proceeded on
S10 min	Address Outstanding Action Items	group
10min	AOB	group

New Action items

Browser not supported