Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Next »

Date

1-2:30pm EST

Call-info

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/j/619789499
Or iPhone one-tap: US: +16468769923 (619789499#) or +16699006833 (619789499#)

Or Telephone：
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 6468769923 or +1 6699006833 or +1 4086380968

Meeting ID: 619 789 499
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/zoomconference?m=lfJNhr4XU-I8p7oRrXXwebNlh57Ti7kq

Participants

Goals

  • Finish assessing Ready for Implementation tickets for suitability of “Ready for Community Developer” status

  • When assessing, please answer the following questions:

  1. Candidate for Ready for Community Developer? YES/NO (primary concern)

  2. Whether the ticket is still relevant, its priority ranking, and the tags (secondary concerns)

Resume prioritizing new and awaiting more info tickets

Discussion topics

Item

Who

Notes

Decision

Announcements?


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 What should an unpublished archival object look like?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.

  1. ANW-809

    1. no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

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

  2. ANW-816

    1. no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

  3. ANW-843

    1. no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

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

  4. ANW-908

    1. 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.

    2. priority minor seems ok


William

  1. ANW-616

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  2. ANW-215

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  3. ANW-453

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  4. ANW-468

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  5. ANW-332

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  6. ANW-340

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

Julia

  1. ANW-255

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  2. ANW-256

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  3. ANW-277

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  4. ANW-273

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  5. ANW-615

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  6. ANW-601

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  7. ANW-638

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  8. ANW-658

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

Action items

  •  

Decisions

  • No labels