Date

03 May 2018

Attendees

Discussion items

Time	Item	Who	Notes
5 mins	Convene & roll call
5 mins	RFQ Sub-group Update	Will Quan
15 mins	Fin Obj Program	Hammad Akbar	Programs
15 mins	WG transition timing	All
5 mins	AOB & adjourn	All

Time	Item	Who	Notes
5 min	Convene & roll call
5 min	RFQ sub-group update	William Quan
15 min	Fin Obj program	Hammad Akbar	Programs
15 min	WG transition timing	All
5 min	AOB & adjourn	All

Action items

Aaron Williamson: send list of active & inactive working group participants
William Quan: invite Symphony LLC to participate
Peter Monks: move over existing working group wiki content
Hammad Akbar, William Quan: define & circulate proposed goals and expectations for operation of the WG

Minutes

JS: Any updates regarding subgroups?

WQ: Want to bring trade objects and RFQs into this larger finobj group and talk about what the initial scope of a trade object is, starting with rates, then working out the delta to… Hammad, anything to add?

HA: No that we’ve formally launched FINOS and started setting up programs under the new struction, we’re trying to lay out some clearer goals and expectations around the working groups. Ultimately looking to establish standards that people across the industry can look to for guidance. Try to help move the industry forward through automation. If we can come together and define standoff points with some level of consistency, it should help us avoid duplicative work and allow us to move forward at a more accelerated pace. Obviously adoption is a big part of standards, so I think to move forward we need to look at what’s being used today, how successful it is, and instead of trying to define standards from the ground up, try to converge on existing or new standards as we look at what’s working. Once we define all the goals and expectations, we’ll share those and start setting up the standing meetings and get work underway. If you have questions, please feel free to reach out to me, Peter Monks, or Will Quan.

JS: Excellent, thank you Hammad. Peter, is there an ETA for getting the program pages set up?

PM: Yes, the space is setup and Will and Hammad have been added as admins. But the infra is there and since this group is already underway, I suggest we don’t wait for perfection and open it up to members right away. The bigger question is, what happens with this existing working group? At this stage, it’s in limbo because it doesn’t exist within any specific program. Do you want to reconstitute it under the FinObj program, and if so, should we change the charter etc.?

WQ: I do think it should continue in the program, but the charter should change, and we should make sure we talk to everyone about their use cases and take stock of where we are and where this group wants to go.

PM: The other alternative is for this WG to stay with the Symphony program and narrow the charter to Symphony MessageML objects, which would be perfectly fine.

WQ: Does Symphony want to maintain a FinObj group?

PM: No, my understanding is that they want the community to decide what it wants to do.

WQ: Yeah. I think we should be in the FinObj program, but Symphony should feel welcome to participate in it, because obviously it relates to how objects flow over Symphony.

HA: I agree, it’s important to maintain a consistent cross-platform standard, and therefore that we should keep it under the FinObj program.

WQ: Agree. It would be beneficial for Symphony to participate.

JS: I agree with all of that. I’d add that I don’t really see any value for this group to continue to exist. It has merged into the FinObj program with a broader remit than what it had before. And the discussions are better off down in the subgroups where the right people are involved. I’m sort of looking for the right time to point the PMC to the existing work and materials and then hand it off to the individual subgroups. Peter, how do you see this happening? Would this group be archived?

PM: Yes, that’s exactly what we did with API and DWAPI and I could do that today. Johan, if you give me the green light, I’ll move the existing materials into the FinObj space and then we can figure out where it all goes in the new structure later.

AW: Should we keep this group around for the purpose of coordinating and merging the work of the other subgroups?

PM: Currently that’s the responsibility of the PMC.

WQ: I think we should keep the meetings to a single call and discuss all of the objects in these calls, and if there’s breakout work to do, that can be done separately.

HA: Yeah, and I think as new participants come in and identify specific interests/objects we can slot them into existing or new groups. In the meantime, I think we should keep to one call, a narrow scope and a clear focus.

WQ: Maybe we should table this for the moment and then once we’ve had the chance to take stock of the existing participants and the new goals, we can grow from there.

PM: Johan and I have been having a bit of a conversation about this, and the reason the agenda wasn’t available was that we were still in the middle of that. So everything from the old WG will be moved into the new program’s wiki space and you’ll all have complete access. As for contacting Symphony, I suggest that invitation come from the group itself rather than the Foundation, I think it’d be received better.

WQ: Ok, sure we’re happy to. Could the Foundation help us take stock of the past and existing participants?

JS: It sounds like you have a plan but that we keep this call for the next couple of meetings, but then we’ll decide.

AW: I think what’s being proposed is that this will be the only regular