CDM Contribution Review Working Group - May 12th, 2026

[eteridvalishvili]

CDM Contribution Review Working Group Minutes

Meeting Host: Lyteck Lynhiavu, ISDA

Date

May 12th, 2026 - 10 am EST / 3 pm BST.

Untracked attendees

• Fullname, Affiliation, (optional) GitHub username

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 legal@finos.org 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 past meeting minutes
  • CDM Contribution Review Working Group - April 28th, 2026 #4578
• Releases
  • Milestones: https://github.com/finos/common-domain-model/milestones
• CRWG Kanban Board: CDM CRWG
  • Review Approved (10mins)
  • Review Follow-up (10mins)
  • Review Current (20mins)
• AOB, Q&A & Adjourn (5mins)
  • FINOS All Community Call on May 26, 2026, 10am ET / 3pm BST Zoom - Registration link

Meeting Minutes

[AI generated]

• Quick Recap

  • This meeting focused on reviewing the status of various development items and project updates within the FINOS community. The team discussed release 5.37 status, with Benjamin reporting minor release issues due to Codefresh deployment problems that the technical team is addressing. The group reviewed several items on the CRWG board, including PRs related to event creation, lifecycle models, and CDM smart contracts. Key discussions centered around a date resolution function implementation, where Alston and Manuel debated whether to use adjusted or unadjusted dates, leading to a decision to take the discussion offline. The team also reviewed a PR regarding party definitions for transferable products, where Thomas explained the need to modify party roles for asset-related obligations. Luke presented updates on framework changes and instruction composition work, with plans to add images and documentation. The conversation ended with discussions about deprecated types removal policy, where Hugo confirmed that deprecated annotations from version 6 could be removed in version 7, though this required further policy clarification.

• Summary

  • Release 5.37 Status Update Meeting:
    Benjamin reported on the status of release 5.37, noting that while the minor release was completed, there were ongoing issues with Codefresh deployment that the technical team was addressing. The team discussed the interest rate cap floor function which had been merged for 5.37 but still had some linked items in versions 6 and 7. The conversation ended with a review of the CRWG board and a request from Manuel for Lyteck to follow up with Alston regarding item 3969.

• Resolve Date Function Implementation Challenges:
  The team discussed implementation challenges with the resolve date function in the event lifecycle model, particularly regarding whether to use adjusted or unadjusted dates. Alston explained that the current workaround involves repurposing an existing date object, but this solution requires Java implementation and may not be suitable for all versions. The group agreed to take the discussion offline to explore alternative options, particularly for version 7, while applying the current workaround to versions 5 and 6. Benjamin provided updates on PR 4639 from Regnosis, indicating that development work is complete and awaiting review. The conversation ended with Thomas requesting to discuss issue 3590, but the transcript ended before this topic was addressed.

• PR Implementation for Party Definitions:
  The team discussed a PR implementation that addresses issues with party definitions and coupon payment obligations in transferable products. Thomas explained that the change modifies abstracted party definitions to correctly assign dividend and coupon payment obligations, rather than having the seller automatically handle these payments. While the product party role attribute is currently required, Leo suggested simplifying the enum name to make it more understandable and potentially making it optional in some contexts. The team agreed to proceed with the current implementation for the 7 release, with Chris and Oscar tasked with providing final approval, and Chris to identify any remaining condition-related issues that need addressing.

• Kanban Board Review Meeting:
  The team reviewed several items on their Kanban board, with key decisions made on moving forward with PRs. Luke agreed to add images and comments to issue 4615 and raise a PR for the framework work, with David and others volunteering as reviewers. For issue 4591, Chris agreed to review Laura's suggestion within the next day or two, with the item approved pending his review. The team also discussed item 2213, where Leo suggested using ancillary party instead of settlement base, and Tom agreed to refactor the code accordingly. Regarding deprecated types removal for version 7, Hugo confirmed that types deprecated in version 6 should be removed in version 7, though this was noted as a policy decision rather than a technical requirement.

Action Items

• Next Steps
  • Alston: Discuss with Manuel and Marc offline to review and decide on the approach for the resolve date function implementation, particularly for version 7, and apply the agreed solution to versions 5, 6, and 7.
  • Luke: Add images and details to issue 4165 (Rosetta framework) and raise a PR for the work done in the Rosetta workspace; ensure maintainers (including David, Chris, and others) review.
  • Chris: Review Laura's suggestion/proposal on issue 4591 (reset functionality refactoring) and provide feedback within the next day or two; if approved, move to approved status.
  • Thomas: Add comments and suggestions discussed (regarding Leo's feedback on product party role) to the relevant issue for future consideration.
  • Luke: Add reasons why reset instruction cannot use the reset instruction as a staging area to the issue comments for 4165.
  • Thomas: Provide examples for issue 4610 (trade lot price quantity enhancement).
  • Manuel: Review issue 4610 and provide comments to Thomas next week.
  • Thomas: Refactor issue 2213 (settlement party) based on Leo's suggestion to use ancillary party, provide an example, and revisit in the next meeting.
  • Hugo: Proceed with removing types marked as deprecated in version 6 for version 7 release (no objection raised).
  • Chris: Highlight any outstanding condition changes needed for Thomas's PR (3590) and notify Thomas if not already addressed.

Join Zoom Meeting

Join Zoom Meeting:
https://zoom-lfx.platform.linuxfoundation.org/meeting/94584131804?password=b7edff0a-9cc6-426f-b0d9-28eb4fb0de71

Register to the meeting series to receive an invitation:
https://zoom-lfx.platform.linuxfoundation.org/meeting/94584131804?password=b7edff0a-9cc6-426f-b0d9-28eb4fb0de71&invite=true

[llynhiavu]

Board as of:

[chrisisla]

Chris / ISLA

[manel-martos]

Manuel Martos / TradeHeader

[tomhealey-icma]

Tom Healey/ICMA

[lolabeis]

Leo Labeis / REGnosys

[hugohills-regnosys]

Hugo Hills / REGnosys

[ReleaseManagement-BP]

Ben Page / REGnosys

[nubbymong]

Nick Moger / JPM

[Oscar-Twomey]

Oscar Twomey / REGnosys

[Vishal-Joshi]

Vishal Joshi - Tokenovate

[ben05allen]

Ben Allen - Insight Matters

[lukebanas]

luke - tokenovate

[eacunaISDA]

Eleonora / ISDA

[ReleaseManagement-BP]

State of the board post-call

[ReleaseManagement-BP]

ID	Old State	New State	FOLLOWUP
3969	PR Ready	PR Ready	Discussed between manuel & alston - concern, raised  that additional modelling will be needed. Since this problem has been raised in 7dev after 5 and 6 have been released, if this is implemented in 7, a new issue should be raised for 5 and 6 to resolve those as well
4521	PR Ready	PR Ready	Chris raised an issue on whether the productPartyRole changes are required or not to be mandatory. Tom explained that every asset should have an obligation to pay coupons or dividends, so should be required. It has built successfully. Leo raised additional changes to change the name of the counterpartyroleenum to partyroleenum, and rename productpartyrole to producepartyside, but for this to be made as part of a separate issue to prevent the issue being delayed. Chris to highlight and identfy one duplicate that was still remaining in the files
4639	Approved	Approved	Erin has finished the development on this issue, once the work has been internally reviewed and then will be moved to PR Ready
4392	Approved	Approved	Ben has finished the development on this issue, once the work has been internally reviewed and then will be moved to PR Ready
4165	Follow-Up	Approved	Looking to raise a PR for the framework, with screenshots available for the new naming conventions agreed upon. Luke to also add additional detail on why resetInstruction can not be used. Lyteck & Chris will review the PR once available
4591	Follow-Up	Approved	Laura has added a proposal, aiming to ensure the functionality wihthin the current implementation remained intact, by shifting the instruction left through the new structure composition. The idea would be for Calculate_Reset to be the new name of the functionality preserved. Ask for Leo to review the suggestion to be able to move forward. Chris will also review the suggestion. Agreed to approvew this pending review from Chris in the next coming days
4610	Follow-Up	Follow-Up	Action to provide examples is still yet to be done. Manuel discussed internally with TradeHeader, and will report to Tom in the following week. This will not come into CDM 7, but would be important for SFTR
2213	Follow-Up	Follow-Up	Chris has reviewed this, and approves of it, however Leo suggested using AncilliaryParty instead, but Tom suggested this was a broad range for instiitutions, Leo suggested not having any specified party near economicTerms, and an alternative should be agreed. settlementBase should not having any party available as a settlement party. Leo suggests adding ancilliary, and adding settlementcentre under the enum for this purpose. Tom will refactor based off Leo's suggestion
4641	Follow-Up	Approved	Opinion of the group that deprecation is an additional precaution taken on top of already removing any uses of the function that is being deprecated. No objections, approved