2019-6-13 Resource Access Meeting Notes



Cate Boerema (Deactivated)

Discussion Items

5 minHousekeepingEmma Boettcher
  • Notetaker
  • Are we meeting 6/20

Ranking review introHolly MistlebauerHolly gives overview of ranking review process
30+ minRequests rankingsReview relative rankings for Requests from gap analysis
  • Review the requests UXPROD rankings according to Holly's proposed process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PxQ-qPJeCLkUEaOhZL4bQHUA3vT80e1tivfZsjCr1WY/edit
  • Goal is to:
    • Make sure ppl understand the meaning of the features (use cases will be really valuable here)
    • Discuss any surprises ("why was this ranked so high/low")?
    • Really question whether each feature is going to be a blocker for go-live with the goal or reducing go-live rankings for institutions
    • Split features if one piece seems higher priority than another
    • SIG members should be empowered to update their rankings on the fly during the discussion (spreadsheet will be provided)
15minAnonymizationManual anonymization of loans & fines/feesDecide: is a setting needed to prevent (or allow) manual anonymization of loans with fines/fees

10minCheck outCheck out messages orderTradeoff at checkout: suboptimal message order (non-circulating override displays at the end) with better performance, OR optimal message order with slower performance?

Meeting Outcomes

Functional Area

Product Owner

Planned Release (if known)

Decision Reached


e.g. loans, fees/finesNamee.g. Q4 2018, Q1 2019

LoansEmma Boettcher
Check out messages : displaying a non-circulating policy message last is suboptimal, as previously agreed, but is acceptable in short term as the team works on other things.
LoansEmma Boettcher
On-demand anonymization : Excluding loans with fees/fines from any manual anonymization, and only anonymizing them according to automated settings (if at all), is acceptable


Notes by David Bottorff

No Meeting Monday, We should have a quorum on Thursday


  • overview of capacity planning assignment

  • At current capacity, not all go features will be delivered by institutions' go live dates

    • adding developer capacity seems a bit late

    • will institutions need to alter their go live date or revise what they need at go live?

  • PO will review features needed for go-live, ask for SIG feedback, changes will be captured in Jira

  • Not only priority but also order in which features are being approached

  • deep dive for go live or first quarter after go live

  • may need to split features so that some elements are higher priority than others

  • cost of feature

  • show local team your recommendations to update local ranking

  • Assignment is due July 31, but stakeholders meet July 23, should higher priority epics be tackled first?

  • This will happen during SIG meetings after Washington DC meeting


  • ordering of checkout messages (non-circ policy, checkout notes, then multipiece) could have performance issues, would effect all items at checkout consensus is that short term reorderign is acceptable for the sake of performance to non-circ policy being last

  • anonymization - manual anonymization at patron request should all closed loans with fines/fees be excluded from manual anonymization okay? yes this seems ok