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

« Previous Version 9 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.

Kanban boards: New bug reports: https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=15

New feature requests: https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=16

Link to ArchivesSpace sandbox: http://test.archivesspace.org/

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 What should an unpublished archival object look like?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.

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


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?

Alicia

  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?

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.

Terra

  1. ANW-615

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  2. ANW-601

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  3. ANW-638

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  4. ANW-658

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

Jiras

Alicia

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

  2. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-357

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

1.

2.

3.

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.

2.

3.

Terra

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

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

1.

2.

Maggie

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

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

  1. 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. 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 dependant on 698 and linking to that ticket.

1.

2.

Lora/Laney

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

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

1.

2.

Lydia

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

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

1.

2.

Action items

  •  

Decisions

  • No labels