2021-02-23 Meeting Notes
Date
Attendees
Theodor Tolstoy (One-Group.se)
Goals
Discussion items
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
New ranking system proposal | Holly Mistlebauer |
Tom - this will be a public document, no protection against people from outside the community messing with the document Tom - how will people vote, need to be registered like with governance model voting? Holly - would not want to be that formal, maybe have one person per institution be an editor Tom - would also like to see decisions reflected in JIRA Tom - there have been cases where institutions gave an R1 rating to a features but POs gave it a P2 without explanation. Would help transparency to know why these decisions are made. Brooks & Holly - there is a PO Ranking Notes field that can be used for this Ian - does 'institutions' in this case include vendors, or only libraries? because as a vendor that does multiple implementations, my feature priorities would be different than those of my partner libraries Brooks - those kinds of priorities should be communicated through technical or product council and that those bodies should have some direct influence over the plan. Martina S - this could be a portion of the assessment, e.g. 70%, the rest would have to come from roadmap planning, e.g. major features Holly - it would be libraries - if things aren't a priority for libraries the vendors would always be outvoted anyway Martina S - also networks, as GBV ranks on behalf of its member libraries Beth - how will libraries that use a vendor participate? Tod - how would these needs be made known? Martina S - I am aware that any form of determination is certainly always unfair for someone – but do we think it is okay if every institution, regardless of size and scope of use, has 100 points? Would it be possible to subdivide into keys like "very large", "large", etc.? Holly - would like to keep it this way for at least the first time and then see if issues like that need to be addressed Holly - will take these suggestions to the Cap Plan, doesn't expect any concerns from them. Will come back next week for questions about this, as well as updating on the Juniper release. Will share final proposal at March 4 PC meeting. Will open voting on rankings from March 8-19, Cap Plan will review on Mar 22, then give POs two weeks to review, meet with Implementers again on Mar 23, have a final Cap Plan review, back to Implementers on April 20, then present to PC on April 22. Holly - how do we want the features presented to us? A spreadsheet separated by Epic and sorted by PO rank might make it easier. There is a new template for features that POs should use now Marie - do we rank JIRAs at all now? Holly - it has been helpful for some institutions to track what is important to them. Probably should keep ranking through at least the first time we try the new process ACTION - please review proposal and make comments before next week | |
Future topics | Receiving workflow demos deferred until Honeysuckle | ||
March 2- Capacity Planning team Juniper update. See January 28 Product Council minutes or recording for background on how the process works. |