Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

\uD83E\uDD45 Goals

\uD83D\uDDE3 Discussion topics

Time

Item

Presenter

Notes

5 min

Welcome

Jessica/Everyone

Resources:

Survey results: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rU9M21IgwhSGh6YufxA7Iic7iWUaPGQFm-hUBoHYTbw/edit?usp=sharing

Use case document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/173G2PXg-sP7pe1Xlo76FhqqcJnNxbu-UFmrWR-AbMHY/edit?usp=sharing

Behavior scenario use case document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HoKKWqmHpqGQKMK4dQQiQMw2MnoR-7pdTtxt9IVqyKY/edit#heading=h.3mdvo5778nqs

Specification template: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BZGoAlOCHmfeOdugMhJBBkQXNzOYHw3tTk9Y5SGL4lQ/edit?usp=sharing

Jira ticket template: Behavior Scenarios

30 min

Discussion of use cases and spec

All

Do we need to add more use cases? Does this represent the scope of work?

15 min

Where do we go from here?

Everyone

  • There is a desire for this work to be iterative. Selecting specific areas of development to focus on bringing forward for testing and proof of concept as a way to drive community interaction and development.

  • The team recognizes the scope of this work will change and grow, specifically around RTL scripts. The specification currently includes some related tickets but not all. The team discussed inclusion of this ticket into the overall work plan:

    \uD83E\uDD45 Goals

    \uD83D\uDDE3 Discussion topics

    Time

    Item

    Presenter

    Notes

    5 min

    Welcome

    Jessica/Everyone

    30 min

    Discussion of use cases and spec

    All

    • Cory very helpfully added a behavior scenario to the use case document for RTL functionality. This wasn’t initially part of the scope of the work so the addition was very well received and this gets us ahead of the game on that particular requirement. The ticket for that functionality is at

      Jira Legacy
      serverSystem Jira
      serverId36c489e2-4fb0-353a-985b-64038401be2f
      keyANW-1144
      The team would like to review, amend, and add to the specification. The goal is to make the specification available to the community. The spec will be made available community wide and specific council sub-teams and community members with special interest or expertise will be contacted directly. behavior scenario is linked above.

    • There is concern that certain sub-records like extents and dates, which are repeatable fields that impact other application functionality, may be more complex than other functions. For now, the team will move forward knowing this may be a complication but for now the primary focus is on how multi-lingual description will look and feel in the PUI/SUI.

    • One thing to keep in mind is that what we are talking about is not repeating fields in the application but representing the same field in multiple languages. The fields will not be “repeated,” just represented different ways.

    • One major piece of functionality to discuss is how will a user select their preferred language.

    15 min

    Where do we go from here?

    Everyone

    See below

    10
    min

    Next steps and action items?

    •  All team members will review the ticket at
      Jira Legacy
      serverSystem Jira
      serverId36c489e2-4fb0-353a-985b-64038401be2f
      keyANW-2096
      and provide their own scenario for how this specific functionality will look and behave in the application. Refer to previous documents and other tickets for examples and ideas.

    Next meeting: August 27, 2024

    ✅ Action items

    •  All team members will review the ticket at
      Jira Legacy
      serverSystem Jira
      serverId36c489e2-4fb0-353a-985b-64038401be2f
      keyANW-2096
      and provide their own scenario for how this specific functionality will look and behave in the application. Refer to previous documents and other tickets for examples and ideas.

    ⤴ Decisions