2023-02-22 - Product Committee

Owned by Wes Brown
Last updated: Mar 28, 2023 by Jaume DUBOIS
2 min read

Date

Feb 22, 2023

 Participants

  • @Wes Brown

  • @Sarah Farooqi

  • @Sainabou Jallow

  • @Taylor Downs

  • @Valeria Tafoya

  • @Nico Lueck

  • @Steve Conrad

  • @PSRAMKUMAR

  • @Margus Mägi

  • @Uwe Wahser

  • @Meelis Zujev (Deactivated)

  • @Kibuuka, Arnold

  • @Valentina Stadnic (Unlicensed)

Meeting Recording

Recording URL:

 Discussion topics

Item

Presenter

Time

Notes

Review Action Items

 

5 min

 

GovStack 1.0 Publication

@Steve Conrad @Wes Brown @PSRAMKUMAR

35 min

https://govstack-global.atlassian.net/browse/TECH-206

Questions

What is the review and approval process?

  • Ramkumar: Previously the architecture group reviewed on the technical-side, then TAC review, then publish

    • Wes: What value in the TAC review?

      • Ramkumar: Quite valuable, many changes were made as a result of that

      • Taylor: Content was reviewed but consistency wasn’t a factor

      • Wes: We we need the TAC review for the 1.0 publication?

      • Ramkumar: TAC review is not needed for BBs that already had it, publish and then get further feedback

  • Steve: Would be helpful to define a tight process for review

    • Have a small review committee to review and approve(?) the spec

Need to define the format for the specs

  • “Format” = common sections and structure for content

  • Nico: The the requirements be machine-readable

    • This would be for the BB “Cross-Cutting Requirements” section which would only highlight differences from the Architecture Non-Functional requirements

    • How opinionated should these requirements be?

      • This is being worked on by the Architecture team and that perspective should flow down to the specific BBs

Fit/Finish Work

  • Validate terminology, consistent with global terms as well as other BBs

  • Level of Key Decisions and other sections (this seems to be related to the spec format)

Proposed Next Steps:

  1. Define content format (Steve to start)

  2. Align BB specs to format (Valeria)

  3. Internal tech edits/reviews as needed

  4. Small review team to approve (Wes)

Accelerated Use Case Process

@Wes Brown

5 min

Status Update

Template Sharing

@Taylor Downs

 

Need to define the content templates for BBs to be aligned to them

DPG / DPI and GovStack

 

 

White paper: https://digitalpublicgoods.net/DPI-DPG-BB-Definitions.pdf

  • Uwe: A new version of this document is currently under review

Master Directory Document

@Wes Brown @Shukla, Ayush

10 min

Question

Is a “live” 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?

 Action items

@Rachel Lawson (Unlicensed) Train tech teams on where to document things once Google Drive goes awayhttps://govstack-global.atlassian.net/browse/PRD-51
Create task for this work (@Wes Brown) ->@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.
@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
@Wes Brown Create scheduled tasks for publication (based on list above)

 Decisions

  1. 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
  2. For accelerated work, UC do not have to have Example Implementation to proceed (though these will be worked on as a higher priority)