Date
Attendees
- Andrea Loigman
- Cornelia Awenius
- Cornelia Davis
- (OLD ACCOUNT) Erin Nettifee
- Anne L. Highsmith
- Cate Boerema (Deactivated)
- Monica Arnold
- Sharon Wiles-Young
- Anya
- Cynthia Lange
- Emma Boettcher
- David Bottorff
- Mark Canney
- Darcy Branchini
- Anya
- Donna Minor
- Joanne Leary
- Holly Mistlebauer
- @karen MehlBrian Arrigo
- Laurence Mini
- Cheryl Malmborg
- @hb KounsAndy Horbal
- Kimie Kester
- Brooks Travis
- @Shirley MoentnishJoshua
- mey
- Monica Arnold
Discussion Items
| Time | Item | Who | Description | Goals/Info |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2min | Administrivia | Andrea Loigman |
| |
| 20min | Notices | Tokens for fee/fine notices | Questions regarding which item and/or loan tokens should be available and separating charge from action tokens. | |
| 20min | Anonymization | Emma Boettcher | Anonymization of claimed returned items | Decide if this is a separate setting to other anonymization settings |
| 15min | Due dates | Anya | Not naming/renaming the fixed due date schedule data entry table |
...
Functional Area | Product Owner | Planned Release (if known) | Decision Reached | Reasoning | Link to supporting materials | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| e.g. loans, fees/fines | Name | e.g. Q4 2018, Q1 2019 | Clearly stated decision |
| e.g. mock-up, JIRA issue | |
| Loans | Emma Boettcher | Q2 2020 | Don't automatically put in link to loan in user record note for a claimed returned item unless there is a tenant-level way to configure those links not being added | GDPR compliance | ||
Notes
Darcy presents suggestion for notice tokens
fee/fine screen detail page displays more information than fee/fine record, should addtional additional information be also available for fee/fine notices?
can be pulled in via itemID/loanID
does it make sense to offer full set of tokens?
there could be more information on the notice than on the detail page, is this odd?
probably not, because quick access to item record and loan details is possible from the detail page
often title only may not fully identify item to patron, full call number information, enumeration, volume etc (all existing item tokens) should be available for notice tokens
is there a way to state that an overdue fine was caused by someone recalling the item? it should be
fee/fine tokens need to be divided in charges and actions
date and dateTime are both needed
is it possible to break up dateTime into date and time? dateTime is already a token for other processes and should be kept this way
additionalInfo is info field from manual charges, there is not additional info on automated fees at this time
feeAction.amount and feeAction.remainingAmount refers to the latest balance
multiple charge notices won't be available first, but multiple action notices will
multiple actions on a fee can be summarized in one notice or sent separately
if an action notice is not wanted after a waive or transfer, it can always be deselected manually during the transaction
new function to include note on user record that an item was claimed returned - does this need to be anonymizedand how this claim was resolved
there was a suggestion to link this to the loan, but that would override automatic anonymization
better not to put the loanID in this note?
This is really about what happens when the loan goes to missing. If it's declared lost, then the anonymization is governed by associated fee/fines.
If loan ID is included in the note, does that help? What about GDPR concerns?
...
if the note is done manually by those who need it, barcode or title could be included instead of loan id
...