I like the balance proposed here.

I'll take it a step further and propose that the middle seat have two strict criteria— both that they are employed by an FSI and an active member of CCC (according to the CCC roles definition).

We can tap FINOS for support filling the seats.

@eddie-knight - in a table, have a got this right or did you mean seats 4/5/6 for the strict criteria that they are employed by an FSI and an active member of CCC (according to the CCC roles definition). Do we want the FI to also be FINOS member? If you did are we then have 4 FSI SteerCo members which I think is the wrong balance?

Also do we want to put any additional criteria on CSP/Open seats? e.g FINOS membership? I think 2 of each should be for FINOS members.

Your table captures what I was going for. We can have the entire steerco limited to FINOS members for all I care– I don't think it hurts anything, and it'll help to ensure steerco members have buy-in from their companies.

okay @eddie-knight - lets get some input from @abdullahgarcia

This issue was discussed on today's community call. The precise structure of the SteerCo is not yet determined, but the adoption of a SteerCo was decided by unanimous vote.