Saori provided an update with these key points:

• Contextualized that following the ratification of FDC3 v1 standards at the end of last year the focus now is on the official launch, including and especially the documentation required
• Goal is to do the formal launch by the end of Q1 2019 and there is a plan to get the documentation, both business and technical, completed by then.
• Specifically this means all use cases need to be on the official site and we will focus 100% on this until complete.
• While new Use Cases can be proposed they will not be discussed or reviewed until launch prep is done.
• Agreement to put the approved use cases in markdown in GitHub (as previously discussed) and this will feed into the FDC3 microsite.
  

Key points on migration ownership:

• FINOS requires a CCLA or ICLA to be executed before any contribution can be completed so this must be done before you will be able to add the Use Case to GitHub,

• Each Use Case owner is responsible for pushing their own use case to GitHub

• There are two owned by Rhyddian (who moved companies) and JT will check with Rhyddian to see if he can do this. If unable to or non-responsive Tom offered to migrate them once provided with the specific use case numbers.

• As a more general rule, if a Use Case owner is no longer active in the WG then the WG chairs can post the Use Cases on behalf of the WG.

• Tom, Johann, Leslie confirm they will own migration of their use case.

• Saori will contact Cesar about use Case #15 and if no progress then Tom can also help with this.

Key points on UC documentation best practices and GitHub

• GitHub provides an easier review and sign-off process

• Follow Use Case 1 in terms of headings, hash marks, etc.

• UC owners should review clarity of workflows as they migrate. Kat worked with Riko and Espen to look at each workflow within the use case to identify where existing FDC3 specs covered the workflow and where enhancements or changes might be required.
• Comments can be used to raise/identify items for discussion/approval.
• You can also raise a new issue to initiate discussion.
• The "golden source' of use cases was agreed as followed (for now):
  • Before formal acceptance Use Cases - and all associated work - remain in Confluence
  • Once accepted a Use Case is added to GitHub as v1. Any additional changes/discussion to an accepted Use Case happens in GitHub.
  • All Accepted Use Case in Confluence should be archived to avoid confusion.
• Brief discussion on required quorum for changes to be approved in GitHub, e.g. is there a difference for clerical vs substantive changes? Tom agreed to provide a proposal to the WG at the next meeting.

Rob noted that FINOS is offering the option of moving all content from Confluence to GitHub pages. The WG can consider when to do this, which has the benefit of providing all info in one consolidated location. The group agreed that the first step is to move the approved Use Cases and then re-consider moving more content. Rob offered to speak with Jamie (from FINOS member GitHub) about any tools that might make this easier.

There is an outstanding question of where the mapping from UC to FDC3 standard(s) - at the granularity of workflow by workflow - should be captured.

The group committed to having Use Cases in GitHub with links to the relevant FDC3 standards by the beginning of March. Specific steps agreed were:

• 7 Feb - Tom presents approval scenarios/options to amend approved use cases in GitHub
• 21 Feb - All use cases to be in GitHub, including CCLAs signed.
• 7 Mar - All use cases updated with links to the standards produced by other WGs