Page Comparison

Announcements?

• Finishing up consideration of old tickets for Ready for Community Developer status; returning to newer tickets after this meeting

• Maggie, Lydia, Ashley finalizing sub-team assignments for this year - likely this is the last meeting for this DevPri configuration

Old business

Lydia

1. ANW-664

2. ANW-691

3. ANW-214

• no - not for a community developer

• is there enough info. What should an unpublished archival object look like?

• Priority is ok at low.

4. ANW-538

• no - not for a community developer - I don’t know if a community developer would know how to do this.

• a nice usability feature

• priority is low because of existing workarounds

5. ANW-349

• possibly, but I don’t know if a community developer would know how to do this

• a nice usability feature

• priority is low and could be trivial instead

6. ANW-97

• no - not for a community developer - I don’t know if a community developer would know how to do this, particularly if it automatically strips permissions (which would be helpful)

• a nice usability feature

• priority minor ok

7. ANW-553

• no - not for a community developer, it sounds like the datepicker currently used is part of a larger discussion

• a nice usability feature

• priority minor ok

8. ANW-348

• no - sounds complex

• a nice usability feature

• priority minor ok

9. ANW-559

• no - this involves some architecture planning that probably the program team only knows

• a nice usability feature

• priority minor ok

10. ANW-564

• Close this ticket. This ticket was in response to an older method of reorder. I can’t currently think of another pressing need for an “undo” function.

11. ANW-738

• no - too complex for community dev.

• worthwhile project - is spec ok?

• minor priority seems ok

12. ANW-759

• no - too complex for community dev.

• worthwhile project - is spec ok?

• minor priority seems ok

13. ANW-808

• unsure if this is still an issue, could possibly close?

14. ANW-799

• no - unsure if community developers would have access to this security area, otherwise seems relatively straightforward to find the right code to fix.

15. ANW-806

• maybe? It sounds like an HM plugin for adapting the Staff Interface might be able to be copied to the PUI, but I don’t know if it’s that easy.

16. ANW-809

• no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

• priority of major is good because of accessibility being protected by law.

17. ANW-816

• no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

18. ANW-843

• no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

• priority major, not sure it should be minor, but it would be a helpful function

19. ANW-908

• maybe? I’m not sure how difficult it would be to copy code from the Resource record template and also map the data when it is spawned into a Resource.

• priority minor seems ok

1. Too complex for community developer

2. Too complex for community developer

3. Not a community developer task; needs more information on how it should look (wireframe) - change to Awaiting More Information, get Usability sub-team to look at; add usability label

4. Not a community developer task; needs more information on how it should look (wireframe) - change to Awaiting More Information, get Usability sub-team to look at; add usability label

5. Not a community developer task; needs a spec

6. Not a community developer task; part of SIEWG recs

7. not for a community developer

8. not for a community developer

9. not for a community developer; SIEWG spec

10. ticket closed

11. too complex for community developer

12. too complex for community developer; change to Awaiting more information; needs better description and fleshing out; usability label

13. assigned to Laney to determine if this is still a problem

14. not for a community developer

15. not for a community developer

16. not for a community developer; question of whether it’s for staff or public PDFs, or both

17. not for a community developer

18. not for a community developer; Laney has started

19. already assigned to Lora

Maggie

1. ANW-616

   1. no?, complicated and tied into SIEWG work

2. ANW-215

   1. yes

3. ANW-453

   1. yes, seems like enough info inticket – split on periods or dashes, cram anything remaining into final id field

4. ANW-468

   1. no, it’s already assigned

5. ANW-332

   1. no?, might involve search

6. ANW-340

   1. no? how tricky is sorting?

1. not for a community developer

2. now assigned to Sarah Morrissey

3. yes, as long as we keep the parse points limited

4. assigned to Sarah

5. not for a community developer

6. not for a community developer

Alicia

1. ANW-255

   1. status is ‘ready for testing’

2. ANW-256

   1. Maybe - bread crumbs have been added to various parts of the staff and PUI display in the past, including classifications in the PUI; depends on how difficult this was (Lora or Laney, thoughts?)

1. already in progress

2. would be good to know how common this need is; maybe appropriate as a plugin rather than core code

Edgar

1. ANW-277

   1. No to community developer? It would require a reliable way to detect an index is happening on multiple environments and thus some architecting is required by the core team.

2. ANW-273

   1. Yes to community developer. If these are direct edits but probably not if this requires programming to pull curated definitions on the fly.

1. not for a community developer - too complex

2. getting starting phase could be a community developer project; more work later on (translations)

Terra

1. ANW-615

   1. no? did not received further info from original submitter.

2. ANW-601

   1. yes--Christine investigated issue.

3. ANW-638

   1. yes

4. ANW-658

   1. is this already being worked on?

1. add a usability label

2. Christine is assigned to it

3. not for a community developer

4. assigned to Sarah

Jiras

Decisions

Alicia

1.https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-838

Replicated in 2.6; pass ticket - ready for community developer

2.https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-

1. Replicated in 2.6; pass ticket - ready for community developer

2. 357

This is a great idea! Recommend pass, (but change priority level from major?); not sure if appropriate for community developer as would require a change the subject schema, the display, and exports - but maybe? Is there any other planned work on the subjects module that this could be combined with?

3.https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-700

Replicated in 2.4.1. Agree that this can cause workflow problems if accessions have similar names. Didn’t have a lot of time to look into what is controlling this display, but imagine a community developer could attempt to add the identifier in edit mode.

1. move to community developer status

2. needs a specification - change to Awaiting More Information and add a comment

3. move to community developer status

Edgar

1. ANW-811

   1. As this does not seem to affect anyone, I am unsure if this should remain an issue. I imagine there could be some sort of “refactor” event to deal with code cleanup eventually. I could not install a fresh application to try and repeat this issue.

2. ANW-499

   1. I am unable to determine what exactly this issue is about, due to the title and description. Apologies.

3. ANW-921

   1. If the citations are supposed to be DACS compliant, then this issue is relevant and should be worked on as citations contain the url and accessed date.

1. change to community developer status

2. too old, unclear; closechange to Closed-Will Not Do

3. this information is helpful to many; if people want this, they can put in a preferred citation note; changing to Closed-Will Not Do; Lydia will write a response to this effect

Terra

1.https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-810

2. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-548

Display digital object thumbnails inline on collection/resource pages on PUI. Some solutions offered in comment section, but complicated. Low prioritization?

2. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-548

Might need more info on this one. There is collection mgmt section for processing notes and ‘processing information’ in Note section. Not sure why they want it within Basic Info tab.

1. not clear what is desired; changed to Awaiting More Information; Terra will add a comment

2. too old and unclear why needed; change status to Close-Will Not Do

Maggie

1.https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-440

Not sure this quite as much as much info as it needs, but it’s closer than last time.
Question of how to import the call numbers (which id field they map to) relates a bit to ANW-453 – might want to link to it.
Rec: pass?

2.https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-859

See Christine’s comment re ANW-698. Since ANW-698 is in awaiting more info, recommend passing 859 and leaving a comment that it is dependent on 698 and linking to that ticket.1.

1. still needs more information - indication of specific subfields and indicators need to be brought in and where they should go; Maggie will leave a comment

1. . Change to Ready for Implementation status and leave a comment that it is dependent on 698/link

Lora/Laney

1. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-737

2. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-901

1.Assigned to Lora, needs search and indexing labels

2.change to Ready for Implementation status

Lydia

1. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-789

2. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-919

1.

2.Did not get to