Discuss current state of Custom Fields vs other new fields in the User app.
Discussion items
Time
Item
Who
Notes
Phil cheerfully took notes. We agreed to resume making this duty alphabetically-assigned by name moving forward
Followup on Custom Fields - are we set on it for now? Patty is getting mixed messages from the community. Question of which fields to anonymize vis-a-vis the patron record. So Custom Fields are still in development and people look at them in different ways.
The re-ranking going around is adding some flux, and whether or not this is MVP or not MVP.
The external system ID / honorific / preferred pronouns and names / dept fields - before Patty’s era, we decided to stick them in custom fields at first, but then on further analysis, many institutions need them in common. So they should be discrete fields rather than custom fields. Maybe not everyone is up to date on the approach to managing this.
Per Patty’s convo with Cate and Khailiah, we will get preferred name as a field.
Statistical Codes would “throw a cat among the pigeons”. An open ticket from a year ago, perhaps we could leverage some of the Inventory code similar to that on stat codes. Need controlled vocabulary
Right now, our statement is that we have separate tickets for the ones we really want as distinct fields with controlled vocabulary.
Maybe Custom Fields are a “release valve” for edge-case data that falls through the cracks. But we should resist it as the default answer. They should have tokens to match them to user records.
Proposal to better define what Custom Fields really are and what they really should be used for.
Also to hammer out the core User App fields once and for all.