Meeting agenda 30th Nov

[ColinEberhardt]

The following is a draft agenda which I am assembling for the 30th Nov:

1. Standard updates - to include ISDA CDM recommendation
2. Contribution process - there are a number of contributions in the pipeline that are potentially 'no brainers', and a some others which don't feel quite ready yet. Rather than applying exactly the same process to each, should we take a different approach in some instances?
3. Project Archiving - following on from the discussion in our previous meeting, this feels more like a project than a governance decision. Who wishes to be involved? And how do we run this?
4. ISDA CDM - we will be joined by various Association members in the last 30 mins of our call to discuss the ISDA CDM recommendations.
5. OSFF New York - finally, for those attending OSFF in New York, we'll discuss how and when we can meet up!

[jonfreedman]

A couple of the contributions to potentially discuss if we have time:

1. Software Project Contribution and Onboarding - Regular Table community#218
2. JupyterLab Templates - Software Project Contribution and Onboarding community#215

Some of the specific concerns raised by Neil and Tim are:

1. What it means to take a "mature" project from a member (JPMorgan in both cases) and potentially mark it as an incubating FINOS project
2. What it means to take a "mature" project and try and re-publish it under a FINOS namespace

Tim shared feedback around the on-boarding of Perspective, and user feedback around "apparent downgrade in stability". I am not sure how much we want to get drawn into the FINOS / project owner workflows, or discussing what feels like community management topics, I'd prefer to focus on providing our acceptance recommendation from a technical perspective and then move on.

[ColinEberhardt]

Hi Jon,

Both of those contributions were my motivation for agenda item (2), where we talk about a process that more easily accommodates the current pipeline. My initial thinking is that for projects that are mature and very likely to meet our criteria, we don't assess as a group (as we did for Rosetta, Vuu, etc ...). Instead, I'd be happy to nominate a single TSC member to assess the contribution, write up their findings with respect to the contribution principles, then share with the TSC for feedback ahead of publication. This would allow us to deal with the above much more swiftly, and give the TSC bandwidth for other matters.

[jonfreedman]

I like that idea, it's also a good way to avoid the TSC being a blocker and having to organise meetings for the whole group. I think everything we can do async we should try and make work until it doesn't work for some reason.

[jonfreedman]

Also occurred to me that given we'll be 5 months into the 6 month TSC pilot, and the final month is December we should start talking about the outcome of the pilot and our recommendation for 2023.

https://www.finos.org/community-spotlight/community-spotlight-tsc
"The FINOS Governing Board approved the formation in Q2 of a TSC on a trial basis (circa six months)."