2019-02-8 Meeting

Owned by Nicholas Kolba
Last updated: Feb 22, 2019 by Tosha Ellison
3 min read

Date


Attendees

NameOrganisationNotes

PMC Members

Nicholas KolbaOpenFin
Riko EksteenAdaptive
Espen Overbye (Espen Overbye)OpenFin
Jonathan TeperJP Morgan
Former user (Deleted)Refinitiv
Neil SlingerJP MorganNot Present 
Tim KoleckeCitadelNot Present
Johan SanderssonFactSet

FINOS Foundation

Rob Underwood (Deactivated)

FINOS
Tosha EllisonFINOS

Other Attendees








Goals

  • Revisit March 1 Release Date - Is there a revised target for the public launch of FDC3 1.0?

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1minmeeting startgroup


15 minProductization UpdateRiko Eksteen, Espen Overbye

Example (draft, forked) documentation/product website:

New GitHub issues for documentation work:

Open item: Roadmap (Per Rob/FINOS ideally looking out the next 12 months)

Pull request to merge documentation effort into main FDC3 repository:

Documentation tasks still to be completed:

Additional notes from meeting:

  • Visually the site is largely the same, some content, including use cases has been added. Riko and/or Espen have presented the single repository approach to all WGs.
  • Agreed Nick will review by initially merging into a fork
  • Minor note to refer to the new repository as a single repository and not mono-repo, which can have a different and specific meaning.
10 minSingle Repository UpdateRiko Eksteen, Espen Overbye, Former user (Deleted)

Implications for on-going work

  • On-going use case work

What form of permissioning will be need across the different folders?

If single repository is agreed:

  • Merge above PR
  • Add an automated Travis CI build to publish website to e.g. GitHub Pages (or other hosting location) whenever master branch changes.
  • Repoint https://fdc3.finos.org and/or https://fdc3.org to new website.
  • Add admin permissions for all PMC members and WG chairs to FDC3 GitHub repo.
    • Consider implications of this – all PMC members will have power to accept PRs across all work groups
  • Archive existing WG repos, and point them to consolidated repo.
  • Resolve/finalise any outstanding FDC3 documentation requirements.

Additional notes from the meeting (discussion around permissions and process):

  • Riko proposed that PMC and WG chairs have admin level rights.
  • Nick added any merge into master needs approval from two PMC members and if related to a specific WG at least one should be from that WG. 
  • Each WG can have their own approval process
  • Group encouraged use of tagging and labelling to improve visibility, particularly around things that may be different across areas
  • Agreed to create a contribution guideline markdown doc in the repo, including approval process and how it works across the WGs

A vote was taken re the change to a single repo and was approved unanimously. 

15 minGeneral Meeting (Technical Steering Committee) Questionsgroup

Rob raised some good questions about the general meeting focus and structure.  Let's discuss: 

(from Rob)

I wanted to get a discussion going, which maybe we can pick up at the next PMC meeting, about the purpose, viability, and intent of the FDC3 general meeting in the long term. 
In the abstract, I get it -- we want a monthly forum to get feedback from the wider community. But on the calls I've been on, not just today's, it seems like the bulk of the conversation is the "regulars" and we get precious little feedback from the community that is not on our usual WG and PMC calls. 
Curious what the PMC's take is. Is there more we can and should do to promote feedback on the call from the wider community who we only hear from on this call? Are there things we can do to promote attendance? Can we better frame in concrete terms why we've invited the general community to the call and what we'd like to hear from them about there? What can FINOS do better?
Everyone is so busy -- it's important that every meeting like this we do be seen as valuable use of each respective attendee's time. If we're just doing this call to do it, without a clear purpose, we should consider scrapping it, or maybe doing it, say, less often (e.g., quarterly). 
Also, I think we probably need to clarify once and for all of this is the "general meeting" or "technical steering committee" meeting?
Motion made and approved unanimously to move to a quarterly meeting and align with the board
5 minRecently Cancelled MeetingsgroupWe've had some short notice cancellations of meetings recently; how can we prevent that?
10 minAOBgroup

Action items

Need help? Email help@finos.org we'll get back to you.

Content on this page is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Code on this page is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license.