/
2023-02-22 - Product Committee

2023-02-22 - Product Committee

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

TECH-206: Specifications Release v1.0In Review

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 awayPRD-51: Document Training for BB TeamsDone
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)

 

 

Related content

2023-02-15 - Product Committee
2023-02-15 - Product Committee
Read with this
February 16, 2023 Technical Committee Meeting Note
February 16, 2023 Technical Committee Meeting Note
More like this
Software Compliance Concept
Software Compliance Concept
Read with this
April 7, 2023 Architecture Team Meeting Notes
April 7, 2023 Architecture Team Meeting Notes
More like this
GovStack Team
GovStack Team
Read with this
2023-03-22 - Product Committee
2023-03-22 - Product Committee
More like this