2023-06-07 - Product Committee

Date

Jun 7, 2023

 Participants

  • @Wes Brown

  • @Sainabou Jallow

  • @Esther Ogunjimi

  • @Steve Conrad

  • @Valeria Tafoya

  • @Farina Owusu

  • @Nico Lueck

  • @Rachel Lawson (Unlicensed)

  • @PSRAMKUMAR

  • @Sarah Farooqi

  • @Meelis Zujev (Deactivated)

  • @Taylor Downs

  • @Margus Mägi

Meeting Recording

Recording URL: Product Committee Meetings-20230607_090752-Meeting Recording.mp4

 Discussion topics

Item

Presenter

Time

Notes

Item

Presenter

Time

Notes

Review Action Items

 

5 min

  • @PSRAMKUMAR has sent out a note to WGs, will share an on wave 3 BB use cases update next week. Can they deposit the use cases on confluence instead of Gitbook

Unpublish 0.9

@Rachel Lawson (Unlicensed)

 

  • Rachel: There are two published versions 0.9 and 1.0

    • However, the navigation of 0.9 is different and might be confusing

    • Proposal: One action that we should not repeat in the future: unpublish 0.9

  • Nico: How to prevent to use this argument of being not user friendly or others again?

  • Rachel: Shift in content and structure such a major change that we should still go for it this time

  • Taylor: Common practice to not keep all versions before 1.0

Future Publication Naming

@Wes Brown

 

  • Wes: Next Release scheduled for Mid September

  • Date:

    • 2023.09: +

    • 23Q3, 24Q1, 24Q3: +

    • 2023Q3, 2024Q1: ++

    • 2023.Q3, 2024.Q2

    • 2023.1, 2024.1, 2024.3: +

  • Semver (ish)

    • Major.Minor.Patch

    • 1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.1, 2.0

    •  

Comments

Steve: Is Q notation understandable and used everywhere?

Rachel: Exchanging Q with a dot might make it easier to read and understand

Taylor: vote naming convention driven by cadence? I think cadence should be driven by necessity. What new requirement necessitates a new version of GovStack? (Or rather where are those new requirements come from?)

Ramkumar: Backlog of release features is existing we didnt include in 1.0. Let’s create a pipline of features included into next versions. With such a backlog we could facilitate quarterly releases. Including certain buckets of features from the backlog.

Taylor: Will we keep the naming convention of V1.0 and use 2023.09 additionally?

Wes: I’m proposing to use one of the mentioned naming options instead of V.1.0. They would be the publication’s official name. It would be used for products, for publications etc.

Taylor: Releases usually have version numbers. Proposes to keep version information. Might be confusing for people, as the semantic? notation indicates the kind of changes.

Wes: Not sure whether the conventional naming needs to be applied to the GovStack context. What would be classified as a breaking change? The BB versioning would still be organised by the BB WGs.

Taylor: The versions of the BBs wouldn’t be reflected in the naming of the publication.

Wes: It would be confusing if the version of the BBs does not match the version number of the publication.

Sarah: We use the same format on the exchange YYYY.Q1

Rachel: dots are generally changed in web urls to something else. They are not needed

 

A decision will be made in the next PC meeting.

Sector Survey

@Wes Brown

5 min

Original Survey: GovStack 2023 Use Case Focus

As per the May-22 GC, this survey is being handled by the comms huddle

It will go live next week.

Feedback

@Rachel Lawson (Unlicensed)

 

  • A feedback process needs to be put in place.

  • Wes: Many of the process questions need to be addressed soon.

  • Ramkumar: Create a centralized log for issues and decisions. The individual logs do not include the history and is not revisited.

  • Wes: It is no longer under the specs because we wanted to see them in chronological order, you don not need to version it.

Next Meeting

 

 

 

GovStack UI (May-31)

@Jaume DUBOIS

 

Possible Mobile App Features

@Jaume DUBOIS absent, to be discussed later

Togo Feedback (May-31)

@Jaume DUBOIS

 

@Jaume DUBOIS absent, to be discussed later

Wave 3 BB Use Cases

@PSRAMKUMAR

 

  • @PSRAMKUMAR has sent out a note to WGs, will share an on wave 3 BB use cases update next week. Can they deposit the use cases on confluence instead of Gitbook

    • @Rachel Lawson (Unlicensed) the earlier they start with Gitbook the better because we then can record, recognise and reward work. Rachel can work with WGs if they need assistance.

    • @Wes Brown Confluence may have a lower barrier to entry for WGs.

    • Proposal: Gitbook to be used

Potential Security BB

@Margus Mägi

 

“EE GOV agency and they have an actual idea what security BB”

Priority Use Case Sectors

@Wes Brown

5 min

Next Steps

  1. Get feedback from survey

    1. Try to identify use cases that will highlight the value of the GovStack approach

  2. Identify potential use cases in each sector

    1. Find volunteers to analyze sectors and identify potential use cases

  3. Decide on which use cases to prioritize for the next (post-1.0) publication

  4. Present use case in GC get it approved

  5. Launch the campaign

Meeting Note Rotation

 

 

GIZ, Estonia, Dial, ITU

 Action items

@Wes Brown to set up discussion (on GC?) around documents like GERA. These should likely not be considered part of the core “products” but need to find out where they fit
@Jaume DUBOIS to create a few slides to document ideas for a GovStack mobile app and update on togo trip
@PSRAMKUMAR to gather wave 3 BB use cases and share at upcoming PC (next week)

 Decisions