Table of Contents

Date

07 Sep 2016

Attendees

Name	Organisation	Present / Absent
Former user (Deleted)	Credit Suisse	Present
Mark Erdtmann	Tradeweb	Absent
Former user (Deleted)	FactSet	Absent
Johan Sandersson	FactSet	Absent
Former user (Deleted)	JP Morgan	Absent
Former user (Deleted)	Credit Suisse	Absent
Rob Koyfman	Symphony LLC	Present
Lawrence Miller (Deactivated)	Symphony LLC	Present
Gavin White	Tradition	Absent
Former user (Deleted)	HSBC	Absent
Former user (Deleted)	Citi	Present
Tim Burcham	Markit	Absent
WilliamS	Goldman Sachs	Absent
Former user (Deleted)	Morgan Stanley	Present
Former user (Deleted)	Morgan Stanley	Absent
Former user (Deleted)	Citadel	Present
Richard Kleter	Deutsche Bank	Absent
Douglas Esanbock	Dow Jones	Absent
Julian Ling	S&P Global Market Intelligence	Absent
Greg Romer	S&P Global Market Intelligence	Absent
Gareth Davies	Goldman Sachs	Absent (out due to injury)
Peter Monks	Symphony Software Foundation	Present
Nick Kolba	OpenFin	Present
Jon Henry	Citi	Absent
Joe Qiao	Citi	Absent
Ed Sanders	JP Morgan Chase	Absent

Actions items from previous meeting

- Former user (Deleted): schedule discussion on future plans and how we manage contributions plus major design decisions (like a move to Electron). We should discuss future support arrangements, i.e. we shouldn't all need to make the same security patch.
- WilliamS to coordinate a review of the current WG charter (with assistance from any/all interested WG members), and proposed changes will be presented back to the WG at a future meeting
- Once POC project team(s) are identified, create CONTRIB JIRAs for the POC(s) - TBD

Agenda

Time	Item	Who	Notes
5 min	Roll call	Former user (Deleted)
5 min	Review action items from last meeting	Former user (Deleted)	See above
5 min	Minuet update	Peter Monks
5 min	PoC Update	Former user (Deleted)
15 min	Project charter - feedback from ESCo / Board	Peter Monks	There's been some commentary at the ESCo & Board regarding the two objectives of the WG (Minuet stewardship and consistency of integration with other containers - see the charter for specifics). I wanted to share that commentary.
5 min	AOB	Former user (Deleted)

Meeting notes

Roll call
Minuet update:
- Peter: No update - still stuck with Goldman Legal
- James: move to split Minuet contribution from other legal concerns?
- Peter: haven't heard at that level of detail
PoC update:
- James: haven't received any emails
- CS is trying to execute on the CCLA to have some work done on Electron. I know that Gareth from Goldman (who was in an accident) thinks he'll be able to do some work while he's out due to injury.
- Rob: I have some news.
- James: John is on holiday but is champing at the bit. He juts needs legal go-ahead.
- Rob: given your relationship with Symphony, you can request access to the private Symphony repos. There's no guarantee that what's in those repos is what will be contributed to open source, but there isn't all this legal craziness. Gareth @ GS already has access.
- James: OpenFin guys - are you in a worse position of not even having the Symphony client?
- Nick: yeah I don't have access to Symphony client, I've been waiting for an update.
- James: got it. Until it's contributed to the Foundation... ...these guys are members of the Foundation, but I don't know if they have access to the source code?
- Rob: that's correct:
- James: sounds like you'll have to wait for it to be in the open source.
- Nick: once that's ready, circle back to me and I can start the POC.
- James: it'll happen soon!! Anyone else interested in jumping in and helping out with the PoC?
WG charter - feedback from ESCo / Board:
- Peter: there's been some discussion at ESCo / board level around the idea of splitting the WG between Minuet stewardship and container standardisation. I can't remember if I've given the group an update on that, but wanted to make sure the group did get updated.
- James: and really it's a moot point due to Minuet not being open yet.
- Peter: the summary is that ESCo is not in favour of splitting the WG.
- Lawrence: here's how I'd describe the ESCo perspective (through my lens) - the decision about whether to split or not should be owned by this WG. IT's a WG decision - ESCo ca gave perspectives, but ultimately the question of a split would come out of the WG proposing a new operating moment. Second point I'd make is that there are considerations in that decision. Are you potentially setting up a new WG that has an overlapping mandate e.g. one around code stewardship and another around standards - would the code stewards be beholden to the standards, and how would this work when the two initiatives are under different umbrellas? My personal opinion is that it might be premature to split. That doesn't mean a change to the charter isn't on the cards.
- James: as chair it seems premature to do so. Feedback from anyone else?
- Amit: that makes sense to me too.
- James: if no one has any other input, let's leave that as it stands.
AOB:
- Amit: do we have any prediction when this Minuet open source will happen?
- James: it's tied up in legal. My guess is it's not the highest priority for the parties involved, so it's not happening very quickly.
- Lawrence: on the Symphony side we've executed it. You do need both parties to sign off, but we (LLC) have signed off.
- James: as I understand it they were trying to split off contributors from contribution, so that they could at least contribute Minuet without future contributions. My concern, to be honest, is that we've had the standardisation goal on the agenda for some time, and to be honest to get people to pony up some time to execute on that has been tricky (myself as well). If we want to progress on that we need to identify some milestones and devote some time to execute on it. The PoC is a tactical way to do this, but it won't result in a set of standard APIs. We talked 6-odd weeks ago of working through the W3C standards etc might make up a base set of capabilities for a container, but when I asked for volunteers for that work no one was forthcoming.
- Tim: it still ends up being very abstract - it might be better to go through some forms of POC to find out what people are finding. Next month is Symphony Innovate. What would be really amazing would be if the likes of OpenFin were to POC their project at the event - bring up Symphony (as a POC) inside the OpenFin container. This would be nice to see at that event.
- Nick: yeah I would love to do that. My biggest challenge on the OpenFin side is in getting access to the Symphony client code.
- Tim: the OSF stuff that's in the Github right now, and you're members of the Foundation, can't it be done?
- Nick: I was just told it couldn't be done.
- Tim: is that project some of the source, even if it's not all the source?
- Amit: who will make the decision to get access? I'm fine with that, but OpenFin is part of the Foundation, but not the LLC.
- Peter: SymphonyOSF is the private Github repo used by LLC, rather than the
- Tim: bottom line: it's not possible.
- James: it might require some kind of agreement between LLC and OpenFin. If OpenFin have access to the client they may be able to pull out the JS.
- Peter: we (Foundation) can provide the client binary to Foundation members & approved contributors.
- Nick: what would it take to pull out that JS and make it work in another container?
- James: that's the POC. Rob isn't there just one file?
- Rob: that's right, though I haven't touched it.
- Tim: it might be prudent to do it the right way. For the innovation day I'd love to be presented with a desktop container by a desktop container company that includes the Symphony app.
- James: action there - see if there's a viable way for Nick to get hold of the client.
- Tim: another option would be to use the container with the web application, and possibly inject some Javascript
- Nick: we could point an OpenFin container to symphony.com, but it's not really going to be able to change how Symphony is acting
- Tim: I was thinking in terms of multi-windowing support, but it's probably not worth the pain
- Nick: even with multi-windowing we'd have to change the Symphony logic to be able to use it.
- Tim: ideally this is a simple pull from code, and...
- James: if, as a member of the Foundation, we can get you hold of the code, it might be worth half an hour of your time to see if you can do something like that? Peter can you figure out if they access the code, and then gain access to a pod?

Action items

Rob Koyfman to send Github repo identifiers to Former user (Deleted), so that he can take the internal CS legal steps
Peter Monks figure out how to get the client to Former user (Deleted)
- Former user (Deleted) to take 30 minutes to look at what would be involved in a POC around the client

Browser not supported