Date
\uD83D\uDC65Â Participants
đź“ą Meeting Recording
Recording URL:
\uD83D\uDDE3Â Discussion topics
Item | Presenter | Time | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Review Action Items | 5 min |
| |
Unpublish 0.9 |
| ||
Future Publication Naming |
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 | 5 min | Original Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NCBTHZT As per the May-22 GC, this survey is being handled by the comms huddle
It will go live next week. | |
Feedback |
| ||
Next Meeting | |||
GovStack UI (May-31) | Possible Mobile App Features Jaume DUBOIS absent, to be discussed later | ||
Togo Feedback (May-31) | Jaume DUBOIS absent, to be discussed later | ||
Wave 3 BB Use Cases |
| ||
Potential Security BB | “EE GOV agency and they have an actual idea what security BB” | ||
Priority Use Case Sectors | 5 min | Next Steps
| |
Meeting Note Rotation | GIZ, Estonia, Dial, ITU |
âś…Â 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)