Hi Martina, I've put some feedback on the prioritization into the slideshow, but I have a few other comments I'd like to share with the group:
Requests from Community coming through Jira: I like that community members can submit requests directly, but I also worry about cluttering up Jira with ill-formed or unsuitable types of requests (e.g., too broad, dups, etc.). It might be worth recommending that people take ideas to the SIG first (or appropriate convener to discuss even before a Jira is created? Otherwise, we may need to designate someone to review new requests that come in. When I worked on the OLE project, where libraries could add new Jira tickets at will (enhancements or bugs), there was a full-time quality-control person who triaged them.I also like using a tool (I can’t comment about the suitability of Air Table/Miro/etc., since I don’t have experience with them) for institutional voting. It would be interesting to note not only a total score/ranking for institutional votes, but also the variance. Some issues may really split libraries, while others may be middling all around. Both could end up with the same ranking, but the criticality to select institutions could be quite different. We had this when we say if an institution rated a feature as R1 in Jira. Maybe knowing a count of institutions that say “yes, absolutely, this is a must-have” would help.For weighting votes: I think institutions already live should get a boost. They are already using the system, and probably have a better sense of what they need than an institution not already live on the system. For consortia, maybe they should also get some additional weight over an individual institution. I also think an institution that is under 1 year out from implementation should get more weight. I’m not as worried about member vs. non-member. I think active institutions will have a chance to speak and debate in the SIGs, so their voices will get amplified.
