Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Goals

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes

Paula Sullenger
  • Was last week's discussion a final decision? No, and Capacity Team hasn't been brought in, either
  • Slides from last week
  • There was agreement that the Moscow system can be discarded
  • There was also agreement to pull out FYRO
  • It seems odd to not have R4 (FYRO)
  • Maybe R4 can mean "nice to have" and R5 is not needed?
    • R0 - Showstopper
    • R1 - Urgent/Blocker  (go-live)
    • R2 - High (can wait 1 quarter)
    • R3 - Medium (can wait one year)
    • R5 - Not Needed
    • R4 - can wait until fiscal year roll-over would need to be re-ranked manually
  • Q-do we need a different system, why not just use P1-P5 already in JIRA
  • For developers, P1 means drop everything and fix this - do we really need R0?  After some discussion, it seems we can drop the "R0-showstopper."
The Ps tend to be bugs, so pertain to live libraries
  •   Discussion showed that showstopper has been defined differently by different institutions anyway
  • /wiki/spaces/DQA/pages/2657909, P1-P5 - these seem to align with our needs nicely
  • Paula will talk with CapTeam - will this system work for them?  What do we do with current rankings (rename or leave alone? There is a batch update in JIRA) - Do they have a preference for naming (use Ps or Rs)?  And what to do about FYRO issues?






Action items

  •