Page Comparison

Capacity Planning Team Proposal for Planning Releases

Proposal is getting closer to final approval. 

Vendor question - last week we said they should go to TC for specific requests.  Bywater says vendors have needs apart from their customers' needs. They have approached TC and got bounced back to Cap Plan.  Holly still feels that vendor needs will get lost in the point process.

AMB - likes the idea of calling them NFRs

Ian - doesn't want to say that vendors get more of a say than libraries, but they need something

Brooks - not much real difference between features and NFRs.  Vendor needs are important so maybe there is a way to weight them.

Jacquie - is there a way to get your institutions to raise up these issues?

Ian - if one of their institutions doesn't have time to assign points will delegate to Bywater, which will assign points on their behalf, not in Bywater's interest.

Anya - second this from EBSCO

Tom - the vendor needs are behind-the-scenes issues that may not be of interest or immediate benefit of their customers

AMB - If there's things that vendors need to do in order to support libraries they are hosting: if it's important to the community, it seems like they will bubble up in the regular pointing/prioritization process. If there's ones that are NOT important to the community, but are important to the vendor and their libraries, then the vendor could also choose to use non-community dev resources to fulfill their needs.  For ex, the OCLC single record import work

Anya - APIs improvements - that are never ranked high - are needed for upgrades that benefit all the libraries

Brooks -I would be comfortable with them having points to apply in this process, on top of a separate avenue through PC/TC/CC

Tod - this is something for the Roadmap process group to look at also

Holly - should we just run this first time as an experiment and see how it turns out

Everyone agreed with this

Holly - created a draft ballot, ~800 features. She made a tab for each Epic with a place for each institution to put their points.   Maybe it would be best to think more about what is missing rather than scrutinize each feature

Anya - how do we ensure that the spreadsheet and JIRA are the same?  Split features, etc.  Do we freeze JIRA during voting?

Marie - It would be good for the ranking libraries to know the freeze date as well. If you would like to spend some additional time to rank Jiras before it ends up in the spreadsheet.

Tod - this spreadsheet is for Kiwi, then this will go away and get a new spreadsheet for Lotus

AMB - would some of the fields used in JIRA now be obsolete?

Holly - some of those fields may go away but wouldn't want to take away the institutional R1-R5 ranks because institutions use them in many ways.  Several people commented they want to keep the R rankings

AMB - seems we would need some new field for points, would we have the points for each institution - how will that look?

Tod - doesn't want to see big JIRA changes for this first round

Tom - it seems the ranking isn't really driving the development.  Understand that some things have to happen in order but it seems that if the community ranks something as highly important then it should be worked on.

Karen - I'm concerned that the EPAM team is only working on fees/fines and would find another fee/fine issue to work on regardless of the ranking

Brooks - That’s a tough problem, Karen. The practical result of not having them pick up things in their areas, regardless of pointing by us, is that nothing would get done. The overhead on shifting to another area of FOLIO is too high.

Holly - the PO from ERM says he will take these points into consideration

Kelly - seems like wasting points then if those teams aren't controlled by Cap Plan

Holly - will mark which dev teams aren't part of Cap Plan

Receiving workflow demos deferred until Honeysuckle -