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 2 Current »

Date

\uD83D\uDC65Ā Participants

šŸ“¹ Meeting Recording

Recording URL:

\uD83D\uDDE3Ā Discussion topics

Item

Presenter

Time

Notes

Review Action Items

5 min

GovStack 1.0 Publication

Steve Conrad Wes Brown PSRAMKUMAR

35 min

TECH-206 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Next Steps:

  1. Define content format (Steve) - Proposed

    1. Currently gathering feedback on draft format, setting a deadline of Friday

  2. Capabilities

    1. Need to decide where Capabilities/Workflows live. Are they connected to BBs or separate?

      1. Wes - This will not be included in the 1.0 specification

        1. Use cases, example implementations and specifications is what will be published.

    2. Taylor - Previous standard for the use cases was to first review capabilities outlined in a use case and identified functional requirements.

    3. Ramkumar & Sarah - we should find commonalities across use cases - create a linkage. These capabilities/workflows are reuseable and will be moving forward.

    4. Ramkumar: one could configure workflow inside a building block.

      1. Wes: different capabilities still required across use cases i.e. with registration the content required can be different by use case.

  3. Align BB specs to format (Valeria) - TECH-426 - Getting issue details... STATUS

    1. Tagging responsible parties for questions/comments on Gitbook.

    2. Date to finalize this format by Friday (March 3rd).

  4. Internal tech edits/reviews as needed - (Ramkumar)

    1. Can we make a distinction between ā€œcontentā€ and ā€œformattingā€ changes in Jira tasks?

      1. Tag or other easy way to be able to filter/prioritize the tasks

  5. Small review team to approve (Wes) - Who?

    1. Once changes to format have been made at the technical level, then final approval needs to be done by diverse representatives working on GovStack

      1. Potential individuals: Wes, Steve, Ramkumar, Nico, Vikash (Wes Brown to get confirmation from Yolanda for country engagement representative)

      2. Reach out to Jake, Margus, and Yolanda

Accelerated Use Case Process

Wes Brown

5 min

Status Update

  • Review EPR Use Case ( PRD-112 - Getting issue details... STATUS )

    • Goal is to incorporate feedback received today from Yolanda.

  • Setup Online Construction Permit Tasks ( PRD-115 - Getting issue details... STATUS )

  • Compile Online Construction Permit Documents (Epic Required)

  • Identify/Invite Country Representatives ( PRD-117 - Getting issue details... STATUS )

Master Directory Document

Wes Brown Shukla, Ayush

10 min

Question

Is a ā€œliveā€ document really needed as opposed to a high-level document detailing where content is located? The upkeep for a live document is significant and the page(s) will quickly grow to be difficult to consume. Can we instead rely on search?

Current Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G4md2h6eiSjwWp2Qlb8o-a-5Gwzm64PinWeY0W1ZCAo/edit

āœ…Ā Action items

  • Shukla, Ayush to create a live master directory document (on Confluence) with links to all relevant GovStack folders/files across the technical and non-technical workstreams. PSRAMKUMAR to then circulate this master directory link to all team members. PRD-120 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • Martinez, Yolanda (Deactivated) to create proposal for where to host country content so that it can be linked in the Use Case on gitbook (Will present next week)
  • Martinez, Yolanda (Deactivated) find out if/how to make Use Case source documents publicly available (readonly is fine)
  • Martinez, Yolanda (Deactivated) to share documents pertaining to the online building permit user journey with Saina and Wes
  • Jaume DUBOIS to translate GovStack slides into French - requested this item deadline be moved to March/April
  • Rachel Lawson (Unlicensed) Train tech teams on where to document things once Google Drive goes away PRD-51 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  • Steve Conrad Valeria Tafoya finalize BB specs format by March 3rd.

ā¤“Ā Decisions

  • Agreement and alignment on sandbox purpose - Sandbox is intended for Reference Systems that are a staging-level prototype of a service, not anything approaching a production-level system
  • For accelerated work, UC do not have to have Example Implementation to proceed (though these will be worked on as a higher priority)

  • No labels