2023-04-17 - TCR improvements

1 min

Scribe

All

@Craig McNally 

*

TCR Improvements Review

@Jeremy Huff 

Background:  

• A subgroup has been working on improving the TCR process and would like the TC to review a slide deck which will be used to communicate the changes we've made to others in the project (other councils, POs, etc.)

Notes:

• Still working on the styling of the slides, but the content is all there.

• @Jeremy Huff walked us through the presentation

• Scope:

  • @Craig McNally If there's time today, let's try to agree on scope changes related to shared libraries and ui plugins.

• @Maccabee Levine - slide 4 wording suggestion: "or other development teams"

• Comments on styling:

  • Standard FOLIO slide theme

  • Blue vs Orange headings?

    • @Jeremy Huff was following the template, it seems fine.

• @Maccabee Levine who is the intended audience?

  • Product owners, other councils

• @Maccabee Levine you may want to make it more clear what has changed while going through the process slides... provide some visual cue, e.g. *

• @Maccabee Levine "PC approved submitter"

  • In theory this is how it should work, in practice it has not happened this way.

  • @Craig McNally this will raise a lot of questions during the presentation.

  • @Jeremy Huff there's nothing wrong with presentation content raising questions

  • @Craig McNally in effect it means teams will need to engage the PC in order to kick off the process - since the process is technical in nature, it seems a little awkward.

• @Marc Johnson We should be more specific on the "next steps" slide.  

  • There are already inconsistencies due to the PC's process being recently approved...

    • Should we present this stuff as-is and then fix the process (preferred) OR

    • Hold off on presenting this until we've resolved these things

  • Call out that the PC has just introduced a new process and that what's being presented predates that.

• @Marc Johnson this presentation is doing two things:

  • Overview of the process - needed because some feedback was that the process wasn't clear

  • Communicating what has changed

• @Marc Johnson let's be clear about this during the presentation... Why we're doing both right now (overview + changes)

• Language in the scope statement about ui plugins and shared libraries was voted on and approved (7 for, 0 against).  @Craig McNally will update the official document and will raise awareness at the regular TC meeting.  Approved text:

  • For Poppy, ui-plugins are out of scope for evaluation.  Starting with Quesnellia, they will be in scope.  

  • For Poppy, shared libraries are out of scope for evaluation.  This decision will be revisited after the Poppy deadline has passed.

• @Maccabee Levine Documentation Overview - a lot of links there... 

  • @Marc Johnson  Maybe keep the links, but in more of an "additional resources" slide, possibly in the appendix.

• To discuss on Wednesday:

  • Doodle poll, timing, audience, etc.

  • Record the presentation and share it.

  • Raise awareness of the scope statement changes approved today.