Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current
View Page History
« Previous
Version 8
Next »
Date
Attendees
Goals
Discussion items
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|
| 1min | Select Scribe for meeting | group | Tosha Ellison |
| 10 min | Other FINOS Governance items | group | Nicholas Kolba met with Aaron Williamson and Rob Underwood (Deactivated) re: governance. Here were the minutes from that meeting: Standards Ratification If not, amend the POP to set out explicit voting rules for standards ACTION: Aaron to attend next FDC3 PMC meeting
Proposal: Notice-and-comment period WG decides whether to revise N&C for any revisions Ratification by WG and PMC
ACTION:
Process not spelled out in POP Generic voting rules sufficient, plus ratification by PMC? Role of PMC & other WGs in approval of WG-ratified standards Parking lot: communications re: why we're different from a standards development organization
FDC3 Badging Prevent bad-faith/inconsistent use Foundation needs to own the trademark to register & enforce Should comply with PTO requirements for certification marks to be registered & enforceable
Commentary from the meeting: - Minutes embargo
- FINOS will investigate the feasibility of and work involved in implementing a 48 hour minutes embargo and will report back to the group on options. (Action with Rob.)
- If there is a significant amount of work involved then the group should re-visit the importance and decide if it is worth the effort.
- FDC3 Badging
- There is still some work to determine what the certification badge means, how to use it consistently and how to ensure it is not used purely or largely for self-promotion. Neil and Nick have an open task around definition of certification and welcome feedback from the group.
- It should be clear that this is compliance badging and not simply a badge to say that you are an FDC3 member.
|
| 20 min | Governance | group | decide on process for ratifying standards. Proposed outline: - Proposed standard raised by WG
- by consensus
- by majority vote if consensus can't be reached (good faith effort)
- Proposal Published on Confluence or Github (depending on WG)
- Proposed standard presented at next general meeting
- Mailing Group set up for Proposal comments
- 2 weeks comment period from community
- PMC ratification
- by consensus
- by majority vote if consensus can't be reached (good faith effort)
- Ratified standards should be versioned and published on confluence
For Use Cases, the process is simpler: - Proposed standard raised by WG
- by consensus
- by majority vote if consensus can't be reached (good faith effort)
- Ratified use cases should be clearly marked and published on confluence
Commentary from the meeting: There are still a few things to work out including - Where proposed standards get documented - this needs to be a place where people can comment without having to be in the meeting.
- This can be tricky as some members can't comment on GitHub and some can't even post to Confluence.
- FINOS will look at the options for this and report back to the group. (Action with Rob)
- Given that ratification of use cases will be more frequent there may be no need to ratify these by the PMC, working group ratification may suffice.
|
| 20min | AOB | group |
|
Action items