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." Discussion showed that showstopper has been defined differently by different institutions anyway
Defect Priority Definition for Functional Issues, 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?