common-domain-model
common-domain-model copied to clipboard
finos
CDM Asset Refactor Task Force - May 16th, 2024
CDM Asset Refactor Task Force Minutes
Meeting Host: Lionel Smith Gordon, Regnosys
Date
May 16th, 2024 - 11am ET / 4pm BST
Untracked attendees
Meeting notices
-
FINOS Project leads are responsible for observing the FINOS guidelines for running project meetings. Project maintainers can find additional resources in the FINOS Maintainers Cheatsheet.
-
All participants in FINOS project meetings are subject to the LF Antitrust Policy, the FINOS Community Code of Conduct and all other FINOS policies.
-
FINOS meetings involve participation by industry competitors, and it is the intention of FINOS and the Linux Foundation to conduct all of its activities in accordance with applicable antitrust and competition laws. It is therefore extremely important that attendees adhere to meeting agendas, and be aware of, and not participate in, any activities that are prohibited under applicable US state, federal or foreign antitrust and competition laws. Please contact [email protected] with any questions.
-
FINOS project meetings may be recorded for use solely by the FINOS team for administration purposes. In very limited instances, and with explicit approval, recordings may be made more widely available.
Agenda
- [ ] Convene & roll call (5mins)
- [ ] Display FINOS Antitrust Policy summary slide
- [ ] Review Meeting Notices (see above)
- [ ] Approve meeting minutes
- [ ] https://github.com/finos/common-domain-model/issues/2900
- [ ] Remodelled changes based on feedback.
- [ ] Proposal on One-Of Condition.
- [ ] Update on proposed BuySellPayout.
- [ ] Mark to market on progress.
- [ ] Task Force scope and next steps.
- [ ] AOB, Q&A & Adjourn (5mins)
Materials
Minutes
Action Items
Zoom info
Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/91947398280?pwd=YS85Mmo4ejhvV2VKMlpaU1FmeDYydz09
Meeting ID: 919 4739 8280 Passcode: 867245
Comments on the minutes (originally provided via email on May 22):
- New Choice construct:
- Summarizing the feedback as “supportive” seems a bit stretched. Although the motivation for the proposal was acknowledged, it was a lot to consider.
- As you note and consistent with the governance, a deeper review by the TAWG should be the next step. The review and analysis of the proposal should consider the motivation and alternatives including the question raised by the task force of whether the new construct is a “workaround” for the lack of more robust support for inheritance.
- FWIW, the issues run deeper than serialization including the need to update generators to support the addition of a new construct.
6d: Is adopting the new construct on the critical path for meeting the revised timeline?
