Functional Requirements Meeting

In attendance:

• Tim
• Sam
• Dylan
• Matt
• Jacob (sitting in)
• Mike (Joined at 7:20pm)

Meeting Start: 6:00pm

Tim introduced the Jobs to Be Done and MoSCoW concepts and the reasoning behind them

The group discussed their current perceptions and requirements of the MVP. Discussion focused on the context of Mike’s NMD102 class. Tim and Dylan worked to synthesize the discussion into a Google Doc.

It was assumed that students will present their NMD102 projects in an in-class presentation format and evaluate the projects in-class. This was later confirmed by Mike.

Sam restated the purpose of the project definition, that being that it should be a blurb that communicates the purpose and goals of the MVP.

A question of the difference between assignment evaluation questions and peer evaluation questions was raised. Specifically, it was discussed whether there was a functional difference between the evaluations and it was agreed that there was not. The biggest difference is the carry-over of data: group evaluation questions are always the same but assignment questions aren’t. This conversation eventually led to the defining of “Global” and “Local” criteria.

Mike joined the call and introduced a workflow instructors may follow. This workflow was: Create assignment, define basic assignment data, set start and due date, create assessment criteria, create distribution list. The relationship between the syllabus and a course was also discussed.

We discussed the organization and a shallow workflow of evaluations, criteria, and assignments. It was determined that criteria should be able to be created either within an assignment or independently. Criteria functionality, such as editing and repurposing, was also discussed. Mike discussed his process of reviewing assignments using criteria, specifically his realization during the review process that his criteria don’t fit and having the ability to modify them.

Sam articulated a need for a glossary of terms to establish a vocabulary for the project.

Dylan made a comment about ownership and whether he would be compensated or not. This inspired a technical and philosophical discussion about Dylan’s future.

Mike shared the API documentation for Mainestreet.

The Feature list was reviewed with Mike to tie up any loose ends.

Students registration was discussed. It was agreed that following Slack’s example/model would be ideal. Student validation services were also brainstormed and included Mainestreet, Gmail (the same), and First Class.

It was decided that the Functional Requirements document would be moved to the GitHub wiki.

Meeting adjourned: 8:40pm