A new kanban board column of “Ready for Community Developer”
Please update your “areas of expertise”: https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AC/pages/38502430/Development+Prioritization+subteam
Do we need to define criteria for these statuses?
“Ready for Community Developer”
if everything is a high priority than the devs can’t manage resources and expectations well
recognizing that not everything can be high priority – is it something that would be great to have or is it critical to have
can help program team manage expectations – what can they set aside
As a group when can re-assess the tickets that have already been passed. Ideas on how we can move forward?
Maggie and Lydia will come back next month with some ideas on how can move a survey idea forward – reach out if you have additional thoughts!
Split into 3 tickets. Which are ok to pass? 1 & 2?
https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-866: Pass and move to Community Developer
https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-867: Pass and move to Community Developer
Really old business
close this ticket since the order of the click can be considered a feature.
Need more information in order to replicate and confirm issue. Have others experienced issues with the NOT operator in PUI? Are developers already aware of the problem or does it need more info?
Rec: Awaiting more info
Might need more info on how it would be added to the staff user interface. Not sure how often 670s are used. If this is complicated and unlikely to be frequently used, should it be passed?
Cory’s comment includes specs and will align with Agents work.
Pass and move to Community Developer.
Needs more detail or a specification.
Ticket doesn’t really have an “owner” – should we promote on the listserv?
Rec: Awaiting more info
Close ANW-415 and ANW-416, comment that if feel strongly please re-open.
Pass and change to Trivial
Auto-generate code is used here and it is complicated, probably not suited for a Community Dev.
Link to ANW-783.
Leave comment that closing because it is redundant to ANW-783.
Needs to be better defined. Role and relator are a bit conflated in the ticket. Brings in EAD standards compliance. Adding relator to the import (see code).
Comment to ask for more description and clarification. Move to Awaiting More Info.
Contents of actual ticket: Intentional, not a bug, it’s how the data model is.
Content of comment: A different issue, should be a different ticket. Another solution: using label field should display as a heading. If you still want this to be changed, please create a new ticket.
Disconnect between EAD2002 and EAD3.
Patrick will comment on needing more specifics on action.
Lydia will create new label for “standards”, which is how we can track tickets we want a as-yet-forthcoming standards group to weigh in on.
Keep in Awaiting More Info.
Selfishly, I would like this to PASS
This ticket is super old, vague, and probably very difficult to manage. LT proposes to CLOSE this ticket.
This ticket is super old, vague, I don’t know that we even do deaccession records (besides an event). LT proposes to CLOSE this ticket.
Would like community input on the proposed vocabs for use. Also would love to have external identifiers added to certain models.
Keep in Awaiting more info. Priority change to minor.
Lydia going to add labels “seeking community input” and “linked data”.
Possible future convo about prioritziing linked data related work.
Need more contextual information about what would "look better".
Also need clarity on on the "add into the Edit Basic Information the Resource or Accession number and links back to the component". Do they just want links back to the linked resource/accession?
Ideally pass. Not exactly sure what's causing this, but can confirm that this bug appears. From what I can tell by researching <dao> structure standards, xlink attributes are technically not allowed. Would need to speak to development team about the best way to correct this.
Would support closing this ticket. Additionally, do not fully know what the purpose for this work would be.