Scope of this phase of npoacct

[Brett Smith]

On 08/31/2016 03:03 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

> On 08/31/2016 11:52 AM, Brett Smith wrote:
>
>> I just posted our requirements for the system
>> <http://npoacct.sfconservancy.org/Reimbursements/Requirements/>, and
>> hopefully it makes clear that we’re flexible on this point. We imagine
>> organizations would be interested in deploying it with a variety of
>> systems, and we’d be happy for it to either push to a more general or
>> accounting-oriented A/P system, or have it be the organization’s main
>> A/P interface and have it write directly to the books.
> One thing I don't see in here is any requirement to define the reviewers
> for requests.

Josh,

I tried to get at this with “Expanded lifecycle tracking” lower down,
but yeah, it was probably too terse. I’ve expanded it based on what you
wrote here. Does this change
<https://k.sfconservancy.org/npo-accounting-ikiwiki/changeset/d8a932b4622fb4a63c2a497c8792762e6b42147a>
help?

> In this workflow, the identity of the reviewer would, ideally, be tied
> to a "project" tag which would be required for each request, and would
> be updatable by the treasurer elsewhere in the system.  It seems to me
> like Conservancy and Apache would have similar requirements?

Yes. As I wrote in the other e-mail, almost any feature on the page we
could use and benefit from today. The “first release” requirements are
chosen to be the minimum functionality for the system to start saving us
time.

Thank you,

​
-- 
Brett Smith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/npo-accounting/attachments/20160831/928cc77a/attachment.html>