2020-08-25 Meeting notes

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1jf1ODG12faxFKiLo5JUHpKJVBLAldyy9Va35W7GPiys/edit?usp=sharing

• Current ranking don't reflect implementation reality
  • go-live
  • needed 1 quarter after
  • needed 1 year after
  • needed at fiscal year rollover 
  • not needed
• Proposal - use defect priority definitions but change "P" to "R"
  • 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
• Patty - suggests using the new rankings as of a specific dates - FOR NEW TICKETS. Leave old rankings in place for currently open tickets
• Do we preserve old rankings for historical purposes?
• would people want to map old rankings to new rankings or go back and make updates manually
• Could old rankings be frozen and hidden, but found to refer to?
• Rankings are to help capacity planning to determine what is most important. 
• Easiest to implement would be to rename the existing rankings to the new, then figure out what would happen to the roll-over issues. 
• Tom - Do we really want to have so many levels of ranking? the more levels we have the harder it is to decide the details.
• Tom - R0 = go-live. Libraries that have gone live have either found workarounds, or have changed their minds. weight of fiscal year roll over impacts acquisitions, but not everyone is using acquisitions modules. FYROs happen at different times during the year, so it's difficult to commit to having that functionality at a certain time of year that would work for everyone.
• Brooks - Showstopper  - no workarounds. Blocker - could be worked around, but workarounds may be very difficult, so still need as close to go-live as possible. 
• Patty - Cornell has a ticket marked as critical (statistical categories in users) - tried to get user management to swap external IDs for statistical categories, but UM said no. So what does Cornell do?
• Kelly - Sometimes you have to go-live without the go-live features because you have to go off your old system. But they still need that functionality and some things are not working.
• Tod - We're wrestling with that the ranking isn't working for everyone, but we're still comfortable with a collaborative ranking. Trying to change this so that people who have implemented get their needs met. Need to signal priorities. 
• Tod - Fiscal year roll-over is necessary for those who have gone live - need to let cap plan know. Maybe ranking isn't the right way to handle FYRO. We need to have that in place for the first institution that needs to do FYRO.
• Tom - FYRO is unique in that once a library goes live, they're going to have to do a FYRO, and FOLIO must be able to handle it.
• Tod - in OLE, FYRO was not working when they went live, and they were confident the community would provide it. 
• Lehigh is live - they need to use FYRO next August. Missouri State - July 1
• So we have a July 1 deadline for FYRO. Capacity Planning team needs to handle this differently than other features. No slippage, other things may not be completed because July 1 is a deadline. 
• Does FYRO need its own rank?
• Debra - UXPROD-1752 - optimistic locking (not planned)- needs to be built into every component of FOLIO. Not having optimistic locking has caused a bug in updating holdings and items MODINVSTOR-516 .
• Kelly - some of these they've moved into the support to get more traction.
• Debra - not getting conveyed that this go-live feature (optimistic locking) is not planned.
• All development teams would be affected because optimistic locking affects every piece of FOLIO. Is there something that could be implemented in Raml Module Builder (RMB)? 
• Fixing the bug caused by optimistic locking may have to be handled on a module by module basis as bugs are reported because they are concrete examples as opposed to the theoretical aspect of optimistic locking.
• MSU can't update their records right now - waiting on Goldenrod hotfixes.
• There's a proposal to delay the next release as well as one to move to three releases a year (March, July, November). Can't call them quarters any more. 
• We agree on the R0 to R5 levels and the labels. Step 2 - decide to either archive or map existing rankings. Step 3 - Reevaluate certain rankings/clean-up.