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

  • Take care of old business tickets

  • Finish reviewing Ready for Implementation tickets from the bug kanban board in terms of suitability for Ready for Community Developer status

  • Begin reviewing Ready for Implementation tickets from the feature requests kanban board re Ready for Community Developer status

Kanban boards:

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

Discussion topics

Item

Who

Notes

Decision

Announcements and discussion





Old business tickets

ANW-557 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Patrick

New comments on ticket and on April Dev Pri meeting notes.

ANW-805 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Patrick

Decision notes from May:

Leave comment asking for a suggestion of what it should look like.

Awaiting More Info. If a good answer comes in, then we can pass or close based on that.

Reviewing Ready for Development tickets: Bug kanban board (##/58 tickets)

Terra

  1. ANW-149

    1. yes

    2. yes

    3. not sure/phydesc imported fine for me.

  2. ANW-170

    1. yes

    2. yes

    3. no (works correctly in sandbox). But, I agree about maybe changing date picker, so it doesn’t block ‘date expression’ field.

  3. ANW-365

    1. yes

    2. yes

    3. ask Christine if updated based on other ticket updates.

  4. ANW-369

    1. yes

    2. no? higher priority re: accessibility?

    3. yes

Alicia

  1. ANW-347

    1. y

  2. ANW-234

    1. y

  3. ANW-251

  4. ANW-262

    1. n

  5. ANW-261

    1. n

    2. Same issue as above

Edgar

  1. ANW-694

    1. Yes

    2. It still appears that the whole citation generation process has an issue, should the ticket be updated?

  2. ANW-705

    1. No

    2. This is stale (a year old) and no update was provided on specifics of where span tags are being problematic. Recommend closing.

  3. ANW-724

    1. No?

    2. Priority is set to Major.

  4. ANW-736

    1. Yes

    2. The bug might be difficult to find/fix but otherwise should be ok for a Community Developer to attempt it.

  5. ANW-739

    1. Yes

  6. ANW-750

    1. Yes

  7. ANW-751

    1. Yes?

    2. Priority is Major but it seems doable.

  8. ANW-752

    1. Yes

  9. ANW-757

    1. Yes

    2. Priority is Major but should this be set to Minor?

Maggie

  1. ANW-758

    1. No – because involves different problems with SUI pdf exports and PUI pdf exports

    2. n/a

  2. ANW-760

    1. No – priority is major

    2. n/a

  3. ANW-782

    1. Yes? – minor priority and explains changes in code needed

  4. ANW-783

    1. No – major priority and involves search

  5. ANW-784

    1. No? – think this is a “nice to have” and tagged as a bug and minor, but the standards aspect + importer/exporter make me think it might be complicated

    2. Overlaps with Patrick’s answer re: ANW-504

  6. ANW-787

    1. Yes?

    2. Not sure exactly what this is describing, tabbing through seemed fine, can Laney offer clarification in description?

  7. ANW-792

    1. Yes? – minor bug, however changes needed aren’t described

  8. ANW-823 – this issue is now CLOSED

  9. ANW-880

    1. No – might have been a good candidate (especially with Dartmoth plugin) however it looks like work is already being no on it

William

  1. ANW-249

    1. y/n

    2. other concerns?

  2. ANW-276

  3. ANW-275

  4. ANW-288

  5. ANW-345

  6. ANW-292

  7. ANW-316

  8. ANW-308

Julia

  1. ANW-323

    1. y/n

    2. other concerns?

  2. ANW-604

  3. ANW-425

  4. ANW-635

  5. ANW-652

  6. ANW-664

  7. ANW-665

  8. ANW-691

Reviewing Ready for Development tickets: Feature request kanban board (65 tickets)

William

  1. ANW-616 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  2. ANW-215 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  3. ANW-453 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  4. ANW-468 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  5. ANW-332 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  6. ANW-340 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  7. ANW-534 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  8. ANW-528 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Edgar

  1. ANW-400 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  2. ANW-386 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  3. ANW-330 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  4. ANW-540 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  5. ANW-455 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  6. ANW-490 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  7. ANW-473 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  8. ANW-539 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Terra

  1. ANW-532 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  2. ANW-550 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  3. ANW-517 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  4. ANW-443 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  5. ANW-462 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  6. ANW-445 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  7. ANW-442 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  8. ANW-489 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Lydia

  1. ANW-214 - Getting issue details... STATUS

    1. no - not for a community developer

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

    3. Priority is ok at low.

  2. ANW-538 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority is low because of existing workarounds

  3. ANW-349 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority is low and could be trivial instead

  4. ANW-97 - Getting issue details... STATUS

    1. 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)

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority minor ok

  5. ANW-553 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority minor ok

  6. ANW-348 - Getting issue details... STATUS

    1. no - sounds complex

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority minor ok

  7. ANW-559 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority minor ok

  8. ANW-564 - Getting issue details... STATUS

    1. 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.

Patrick

  1. ANW-352 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  2. ANW-207 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  3. ANW-561 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  4. ANW-210 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  5. ANW-384 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  6. ANW-329 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  7. ANW-253 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  8. ANW-280 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  9. ANW-352

    1. Yes

    2. Just moving the location of the revision statement notes

  10. ANW-207

    1. No

    2. As of Feb. 2018 we said we needed more information about the size/scope of the work

  11. ANW-561

    1. No

    2. Too large of scope and already part of Staff Interface working group specs

  12. ANW-210

    1. Yes

    2. Seems to be just pulling some data into a form.

  13. ANW-384

    1. Yes

    2. However, don’t know how intricate RDE work is.

  14. ANW-329

    1. Yes

    2. Would also need to update Repository preferences to add this as an allowable column

  15. ANW-253

    1. Yes

    2. I think there are some questions about whether this is a unique issue though

  16. ANW-280

    1. Yes

Julia

  1. ANW-255 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  2. ANW-256 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  3. ANW-277 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  4. ANW-273 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  5. ANW-615 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  6. ANW-601 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  7. ANW-638 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  8. ANW-658 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Alicia

  1. ANW-661 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  2. ANW-662 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  3. ANW-663 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  4. ANW-681 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  5. ANW-685 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  6. ANW-685 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  7. ANW-725 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  8. ANW-730 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Extras (Lydia took them)

  1. ANW-738 - Getting issue details... STATUS

    1. no - too complex for community dev.

    2. worthwhile project - is spec ok?

    3. minor priority seems ok

  2. ANW-759 - Getting issue details... STATUS

    1. no - too complex for community dev.

    2. worthwhile project - is spec ok?

    3. minor priority seems ok

  3. ANW-808 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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

  4. ANW-799 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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

  5. ANW-806 - Getting issue details... STATUS

    1. 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.

  6. ANW-809 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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

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

  7. ANW-816 - Getting issue details... STATUS

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

  8. ANW-843 - Getting issue details... STATUS

    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

  9. ANW-908 - Getting issue details... STATUS

    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

Action items

  •  

Decisions

  • No labels