>>> [!note] Migrated issue <!-- Drupal.org comment --> <!-- Migrated from issue #3590152. --> Reported by: [jdleonard](https://www.drupal.org/user/80902) >>> <h2>Google Doc</h2> <p>You might find the <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kR-cXd1uhv3O_H7tj33W_yjtFl7sI5W3fkABfDT0utU/edit?usp=drive_link">Google Doc</a> for this meeting (from which the notes are copied) to be easier to consume and to include additional detail (e.g. comments) not present in this issue. If this meeting hasn't happened yet, find and add to the agenda in that doc anytime before the meeting.</p> <h2>Member Platform Meeting</h2> <p> April 23, 2026 at 10:00am CDT </p> <h3>Meeting Notifications, Agendas, Past Notes, Slack Channel</h3> <p> See <a href="https://www.drupal.org/project/member/issues/3505938">[Meta] Member Platform meetings</a> </p> <h3>Who is here?</h3> <p> Include your Drupal.org username in parentheses if you have one. </p> <ul> <li>JD Leonard (jdleonard)</li> <li>Bob Snodgrass (bsnodgrass)</li> <li>Scott Wolpow (scottwolpow)</li> <li>Steve Ayers (bluegeek9)</li> <li>Eric Wheeler (sikofitt)</li> <li>Janice Chow (janiceychow)</li> <li>Adam John (mradamjohn)</li> </ul> <h3>What Topics Should We Discuss? / Limited Human Notes</h3> <ul> <li><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kfCrdtzNa09_7Cmi3_zccIOCNTpbr9_V/view?usp=drive_link">Recording</a></li> <li>Quick introductions</li> <li>Track statuses and next steps</li> <ul> <li>Event management / event registration</li> <li>Composing/sending emails to members</li> <li>Membership tracking (CRM Membership; not needed for MP 1.0, but high current interest)</li> <ul> <li>Tracking memberships for multiple organizations</li> </ul> <li>CRM (Steve A)</li> <ul> <li>Needed for RC</li> <ul> <li>Access policy vs. grant systems</li> <li>Contact type sub types</li> <li>External entity ID?</li> </ul> <li><a href="https://www.drupal.org/project/crm_sync_google_contacts">https://www.drupal.org/project/crm_sync_google_contacts</a> </li> <li>/crm path - dashboard?</li> <li>Where should standard sets of fields live?</li> <ul> <li>Demographic fields as an example</li> </ul> </ul> <li>Wireframes / mockups (Scott W)</li> <li>Documentation</li> <li>Member profile and directory (AJ)</li> <ul> <li>Review<br> <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GRtLPjmtnKSY38GTNgY-SiF4Aor5DU76ysKRcGM0J74/edit#heading=h.qo4r56hwoe54">Member Profile &amp; Member Directory Overview doc</a></li> </ul> </ul> <li>Site templates</li> <ul> <li>One for member platform or multiple variations</li> </ul> <li>Requirements working session following the meeting</li> </ul> <h3>Action Items</h3> <ul> <li> </li> </ul> <h2>Fathom AI Summary</h2> <p> <strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh">VIEW RECORDING - 145 mins (No highlights)</a></strong> </p> <h3><strong>Meeting Purpose</strong></h3> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=991.0">Define the architecture and scope for the Member Platform's initial release.</a> </p> <h3><strong>Key Takeaways</strong></h3> <ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=4507.0">Architecture: The Member Platform will start as a single module to simplify development, with a plan to break it into submodules (e.g., member_directory) as it matures.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=5273.0">Membership Definition: For 1.0, membership status will be tracked via the crm_membership relationship bundle. This avoids the complexity of the full crm_membership module while ensuring future compatibility.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=3000.0">Scope: The 1.0 release will focus on core functionality (organizer role, member list, basic privacy) and postpone field-level privacy to accelerate delivery.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=6840.0">Catalyst: Concrete use cases (e.g., Scott's kayak group, Adam's neighborhood association) are needed to drive development and provide clear requirements.</a></strong></li> </ul> <h3><strong>Topics</strong></h3> <h4><strong>Member Platform Architecture</strong></h4> <ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=4198.0">Problem: Define the Member Platform's structure (standalone module, CRM add-on, or site template) to balance simplicity with long-term flexibility.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=4507.0">Decision: Start with a single member_platform module.</a></strong></li> <ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=4507.0">Rationale: Simplifies initial development by avoiding premature architectural decisions.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=4507.0">Future Plan: Break out functionality into submodules (e.g., member_directory) as the project matures.</a></strong></li> </ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=1469.0">Site Templates: The platform will also be distributed as a site template, potentially with optional recipes for specific use cases (e.g., neighborhood associations).</a></strong></li> </ul> <h4><strong>Defining Membership for 1.0</strong></h4> <ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=4745.0">Problem: The initial plan to treat all CRM contacts as members is insufficient for use cases like Scott's kayak group, which requires distinguishing members from other contacts (e.g., vendors).</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=5273.0">Solution: Use a relationship bundle to define membership status.</a></strong></li> <ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=5273.0">Mechanism: The member_platform module will ship with a crm_membership relationship bundle.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=5273.0">Rationale: This provides a clear, data-driven definition of membership without requiring the full crm_membership module, which is not ready for 1.0.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=6071.0">Future Compatibility: This approach ensures a seamless upgrade path to the full crm_membership module when it is released.</a></strong></li> </ul> </ul> <h4><strong>Member Directory &amp; Profile Scope</strong></h4> <ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=3000.0">Problem: The proposed scope for the member directory and profile is too broad for a 1.0 release, risking delays.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=3000.0">Decision: Simplify the 1.0 scope to accelerate delivery.</a></strong></li> <ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=3000.0">Postponed: Field-level privacy.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=3000.0">Included: Profile-level privacy, an "organizer" role, and a basic member list.</a></strong></li> </ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=3280.0">Blocker: The team needs a mechanism for site builders to select which fields are exposed in the directory.</a></strong></li> </ul> <h4><strong>Driving Development with Use Cases</strong></h4> <ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=6840.0">Problem: Development is blocked by the lack of concrete requirements.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=6840.0">Solution: Use real-world projects as catalysts.</a></strong></li> <ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=337.0">Kayak Group (Scott): A volunteer management system with event sign-ups, check-ins, and a badging system.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=6974.0">Neighborhood Association (Adam):: A community platform focused on communication (email lists, texting) and privacy.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=5925.0">University Project: A separate, high-priority project that may accelerate the development of the crm_membership module.</a></strong></li> </ul> </ul> <h3><strong>Next Steps</strong></h3> <ul> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=8211.0">Adam: Move the "Member Profile and Directory" document to the shared Google Drive.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=6737.0">Adam: Prepare a high-level overview of existing, functional code for the next meeting to provide a concrete starting point.</a></strong></li> <li><strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=7486.0">Team: Create issue queue tickets for the 1.0 scope:</a></strong></li> <ul> <li><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=7486.0">member_platform module with organizer role.</a></li> <li><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=7486.0">crm_membership relationship bundle.</a></li> <li><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=7808.0">Basic member list/directory.</a></li> <li><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?tab=summary&amp;timestamp=3000.0">Profile-level privacy settings.</a></li> </ul> </ul> <h3><strong>Action Items</strong></h3> <ul> <li><strong>Post kayak volunteer platform scope in Slack for group review</strong> - <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=531.9999">WATCH (5 secs)</a></li> <li><strong>Create Member Platform module w/ Organizer role + 'crm_membership' relationship; then build directory/profile</strong> - <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7475.9999">WATCH (5 secs)</a></li> <li><strong>Create issue queue tasks from Member Profile/Directory doc + meeting notes</strong> - <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7889.9999">WATCH (5 secs)</a></li> </ul> <h2>Fathom AI Transcript</h2> <p> <strong><a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh">VIEW RECORDING - 145 mins (No highlights)</a></strong> </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=0.0">@0:00</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I bolt cutters to cut a lock. It was a really satisfying feeling when it finally went through, but it was also really unsatisfying a few moments later when I realized that it didn't cause the lock to pop open. </p> <p> I have to cut the other end, too. I think I'm just going to take a right angle grinder to it and be, you know, give myself a little start. </p> <p> It's one of those round locks? No, it's actually got an extra long latch part on it or hook. Shank? </p> <p> Yeah, but it's not, it's like hexa, it's got like six sides on it, it's not round. Oh, okay, yeah, those are hard to cut. </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=51.75">@0:51</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, my friend's favorite way of cutting locks was liquid nitrogen. You come out, pour a little bit on it, tap it. </p> <p> But like the round locks for self-storage places, the shank is very tough, but the lock you mix them, you need a drill and a hammer and a screwdriver. </p> <p> Hey, JD, how are you? Good morning, Scott. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=78.5">@1:18</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I'm exhausted. How are you? Not the same. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=83.02">@1:23</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Great. I was telling Steve, my day's going by way too fast, and I keep on getting more responsibilities. They went to repaint the holes of the rowboats last week, and there was an expert who was supposed to have done it many times, and I said, I don't think this paint is right. </p> <p> Oh, it's fine. It was the wrong paint. It was anti-fowl paint, which you have to keep in the water, and you really don't want it on your hands or clothing because it's toxic. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=117.49">@1:57</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> What fun. Yeah, so now we have to... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=120.73">@2:00</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Cool, wet-sanded on Sunday to get rid of it, and we're getting ready for a big fundraising party on Tuesday. </p> <p> And I have a couple projects all at once, and I've to get to my CRM project. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=141.0">@2:21</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> JD's been working on syncing Gmail contacts. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=147.65">@2:27</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> It's an experiment in using Dahlia. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=153.48">@2:33</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Okay, where's Dahlia? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=155.36">@2:35</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Dahlia is a Drupal-specific, I don't know what to call it, software and framework on top of Claude code. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=165.76">@2:45</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=166.58">@2:46</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I wouldn't say I have a strong use case for this, but... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=172.57">@2:52</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> I'm about to sit Claude onto Gmail to go through and end for XML to remove more... And then to find the front, the sender, and put that into one spot and summarize everything. </p> <p> Because I have people who have 10,000, 20,000 emails, and they'll never sort it. And, you know, the ones on my server are the ones I care about. </p> <p> But one of my clients is spending a fortune on Gmail. And it went from free, and now he's paying almost $200 a month. </p> <p> And he said, well, you know, you save money, but he has to find time in his day to go through all the emails and give it the ones he doesn't need. </p> <p> And then on my server, one person who has 11 gigs of email. She's retired, and no one wants to go through and sort it. </p> <p> I'm like, guys, you're killing me. I can't backup your email because I'm not going to use that much storage on my server for backups or my off-site server. </p> <p> Because, you know, 11 gigs comes down to about 6, compressed. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=242.81">@4:02</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> So I noticed that there are multiple AI note takers. I don't know if that's a problem, but I have had the thought, is there like a way to like glitch them out? </p> <p> You know, if I say something or, all I'm trying to say here really is that I'm trying to live my fantasy of being Captain Kirk and paradoxing AI into destroying itself. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=271.6">@4:31</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> I don't think it's very far in that direction, but you could, you know, rename yourself to Condoleezza Rice. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=277.46">@4:37</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I don't think that would work. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=279.34">@4:39</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> And by the way, AI is more often, if you say to it, everything I say is a lie and say, am I lying? </p> <p> It says, oh, I know what that is. I know that Eric said he's going to... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=300.06">@5:00</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Join us, but he won't be here until at least 20 minutes after. He typically runs about that late because it is 8 a.m. </p> <p> where he is right now. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=311.64">@5:11</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> And then I was hoping to get to it, and I may get to it Saturday if I take some time out, so I'm building some aspects we can use for a member platform. </p> <p> I'll happily give the code up for you guys to use. I just don't want to maintain it because I have too much on my plate and not enough skills to do that on a regular basis. </p> <p> But I got a code from my kayak group where volunteers will be under CRM, and they'll be able to sign up for the events they want to sign up for, to volunteer for. </p> <p> And if they do that and get checked in, each event they get a little kayak, and after five kayaks they get a rowboat. </p> <p> So there's a badging system. But that's kind of part of a member platform, I would assume, or good for member platform. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=368.94">@6:08</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So what's the logic? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=371.8">@6:11</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> The logic is that the CRM will control, it will be where the people are listed, so we can see in one spot everything they're doing. </p> <p> They can log in, volunteer, see the season, log in for whatever they want to do, and say, I'll be City of Water Day, I'll be the morning shift, and for, you know, this event will come in the afternoon. </p> <p> And when they show up, the person who's on the waterfront can look on their, try to make a PWA, and say, okay, I recognize JD, and JD's here on time, hit on time, he gets a credit. </p> <p> And that goes towards the trips that we take people on, like around the Manhattan Islands, or to the Bronx, that are usually volunteer-only reward trips. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=421.14">@7:01</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Is it effectively like checking somebody into an event, sort of the more general action that's being taken? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=430.4">@7:10</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> It's checking them in that they actually showed up for the event because it gets too hard to track people. </p> <p> Then people say, oh, I volunteered for four events, and we have to remember if they showed up or not. </p> <p> So it's not to check in people registering, although that's the same functionality, but it's to track people when they come in. </p> <p> And also, I may be running an event and not know a volunteer that showed up because they showed up when I wasn't at an event. </p> <p> I want to recognize who they are, see their names, see what name they like to be called, and know their skill sets and know how good they are at kayaking. </p> <p> So I know where to place them in the group. Trying to think about how to somewhat generalize the various requirements that you're mentioning. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=478.44">@7:58</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> It was like... like... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=480.0">@8:00</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> You need a shrunk kayak for sweep, a shrunk kayak to lead, and a shrunk kayak for the middle to keep the group together. </p> <p> Because while it's relatively quiet on weekends, we still get large ships coming through. And we have the ferries coming through. </p> <p> The ferries always hang for us. The idiots on the speedboats don't. And the jet skis don't, but the jet skis are just like little putt-putts coming by. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=506.61">@8:26</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> It's annoying. Every quick brainstorm of those assembled, you know, what reusable functionality can we extract from Scott's set of requirements and suggest a contra module for him to contribute? </p> <p> I was working on something. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=529.82">@8:49</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> I'd have to see a summary. </p> <p> <strong>ACTION ITEM: Post kayak volunteer platform scope in Slack for group review -<a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=531.9999"> WATCH</a></strong> </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=533.68">@8:53</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> One of these note-takers, could you repeat what the witness said? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=542.381">@9:02</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> So I'll post a scope of what I'm doing in Slack. And this is a scope for mundanes. So I don't get two farms or weeds for that. </p> <p> We still just get lost. Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=568.841">@9:28</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=569.581">@9:29</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> The head of the group. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=571.021">@9:31</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> I get what you're saying, Scott, about, you know, organizing the group and getting everybody with a similar skill set together. </p> <p> And, you know, kind of managing that process. But I think that's more of an outside of the system kind of thing to some degree, unless you wanted to somehow at least get a list of people that was based on a certain skill level that's in their profile, maybe. </p> <p> I don't know. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=600.001">@10:00</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Now I'll be part of it. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=601.921">@10:01</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. I've done those kind of things before, too. So it's like, it's hard to do that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=608.821">@10:08</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> That's what I'm trying to tease apart of it. leader is, you know, is that somebody has attended a kayaking event, right, a triggering condition that leads to something being tracked elsewhere, right? </p> <p> Are we tracking, you know, is there something? one place where we're tracking explicitly the number of kayaking events they've been to, or are we summing the set of kayaking events they've been to, and if the number is greater than or equal to five, they get a badge? </p> <p> get some sort of badge? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=652.821">@10:52</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, so it tracks a few things. One, tracks the volunteers when they volunteer, not when they show up. So they come in, volunteer, like, you know, to fit the PFDs, that's personal infiltration devices, check the waivers, be, you know, living buoys. </p> <p> In other words, they stay at the end of the cove or the basin to make sure people don't go too far. </p> <p> They get a checkmark, and the checkmark in this case would be, to me, be cute, would be a kayak after four kayaks. </p> <p> They get a rowboat, since the rowboat's a little bit bigger. And that's just a cute way of tracking it and have a leaderboard to try and do some competition. </p> <p> But I really want to be able to know, is on their profile, what their skills are. Have they been trained on how to fit a PFD? </p> <p> Have they been trained on making sure people do the waivers or the donation? Or, you know, most importantly, do they help us pack up the end of the day, which is when everyone vanishes? </p> <p> You know, literally, on my former group, I had to lock the gate and not unlock it until all the kayaks were away. </p> <p> But they're going away. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=719.541">@11:59</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Are you? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=720.001">@12:00</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Are trying to say that people who volunteer at a kayak event are like people who show up to a Drupal event, they leave early and don't clean up after themselves? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=731.901">@12:11</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Yes, exactly. And just like Drupal events, it's the same five or six people doing everything and getting overwhelmed and getting burnt out and they don't want to do it anymore. </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=744.361">@12:24</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Well, in terms of what you're looking to accomplish and what I heard that overlaps with the sort of main module or project, one of the items in the backlog is they have fieldable subtypes. </p> <p> And that's not necessarily one issue, but one of the things we've been kicking around would be to allow you to take, right, you want to track the skills of your volunteers, right? </p> <p> I want to restate the issue to make sure I understand. Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=773.491">@12:53</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=774.091">@12:54</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> So you'd have a relationship between your volunteer contact in the organization. And so it's a fieldable entity. So you can just, you know, if you want to have checkboxes or levels or whatever fields you want to use to track the skills, you just put them on the relationship. </p> <p> And then we'll do some sort of magic in code where we'll let you maybe expose those onto the contact form or some other way to make it easier than going in to edit a relationship. </p> <p> Maybe similar, but not exactly the same way we do with contacts and users. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=814.521">@13:34</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> So my plan whenever I'm using CRM is to have a little, when I pull a person's contact, have a little mini dashboard that gives me access to other information. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=825.761">@13:45</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> It's not directly a contact. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=827.701">@13:47</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> So that can be anywhere from phone calls made, sales made, times they showed up in events to what they've done. </p> <p> Because that's what a CRM really should be. And you shouldn't overwhelm the CRM with tons of fields. I agree. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=843.491">@14:03</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> In terms of what we're looking at, we would be looking to limit the fields from all the users or all the contacts to just contacts that would be volunteers, and it wouldn't be required. </p> <p> just want to provide a way to do that. Correct. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=860.091">@14:20</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Almost like a MongoDB approach where you only put things in the document that you need. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=866.771">@14:26</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=867.751">@14:27</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So at the risk of going down a rabbit hole, I had a conversation with Adam earlier this week, and one of the things that came up was the issue that you referred to, Steve, and I had this alternative thought for how it could be approached, which I'm not sure that's a good idea at all. </p> <p> I haven't convinced myself of this yet. Rather than attempt to have the fields that we've been talking about not having on the contact entity because they don't apply to all contacts, right, or not having on the person bundle, right, because they don't apply to all people, or putting it on, you know, a relationship. </p> <p> What if we did put those fields on the contact entity and instead focused on how we exposed the fields on the contact entity or on the relationship, you know, in the UI, right, and in places where people would actually see them. </p> <p> Right now, if you go to edit a contact, you see all the fields on the contact. Well, what if we, what if this sort of concept of profiles or field, set of fields, right, is something that... </p> <p> That this concept itself gets associated with the relevant contacts, but the fields are actually still on all of the person. </p> <p> Are you still on the person bundle? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=971.861">@16:11</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. I know that we want to accomplish something like that, but the details of which I, it is such a like sticky wicket that I'm just putting it off. </p> <p> It's like, I don't really know. In terms of, I don't think anyone else is going to join. So I'm just going to give an update. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=999.261">@16:39</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I think Eric will join in maybe seven to 10 minutes or something. But you should feel free to give the update regardless. </p> <p> I'm going to talk to him after this. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1009.48">@16:49</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> So, right. In terms of what we've got left in keeping us in beta, I want to talk with Nick Laughlin about access policy. </p> <p> I already know I'm trying to do too much in one issue, but I want to kick his brain on strategy. </p> <p> So I think that one could be put to bed rather soon. There's another issue about external entity IDs. So right with your Gmail sinker, there's some similar like Gmail external ID field. </p> <p> Think of this as the similar, but, you know, it's generic enough. And it also has a primary identifier. So if you had two Gmails, well, I guess that's a bad example. </p> <p> If you were using another CRM, right, and your contact had two entries in that CRM, because in the Gmail example, it's probably going to be two different Gmail accounts as opposed to one CRM. </p> <p> Instagram, like Salesforce, where there says two records in it. Both are relevant, but I take your point, yeah. Yeah. </p> <p> There are different ways you can approach that, but just, right, that would, I'm not saying, well, I guess you should implement it when it's done, but, right, like that's the concept is so that when we do these sort of integrations, there's already something provided out of the box for customers. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1109.92">@18:29</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> So, Jamie, were you saying that I should put the fields, let's say the skill set should be under the CRM, not in a separate area, a separate system? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1127.95">@18:47</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> A rep for external ID? Yeah, think that's, the idea would be to generalize that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1132.99">@18:52</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> But member platform is a separate module, and when you call it, it has a separate menu. New link, then CRM, correct? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1145.79">@19:05</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> To be determined. Like, I think we should assume that member platform probably has a module that has a very small amount of actual stuff in it. </p> <p> It mostly depends on, you know, dependent modules that are maybe more general and include some configuration or has recipes that include configuration, right, that provide a user interface and opinionated, you know, build on top of CRM and event and commerce and email something, rather, right? </p> <p> But I'm not sure what you were, where you were headed with that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1188.21">@19:48</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Where I'm heading on that is that when I open CRM and I click on my name, so I see all the information under that. </p> <p> Or do I say links to the information? So a member platform, to me, should be a whole separate entity that links to CRM. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1210.53">@20:10</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I think whatever you install with member platform will probably provide a user interface that exposes the data stored in CRM in a way that is member platform-y. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1223.91">@20:23</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> But that should all be under member platform, and you're supposed to go to CRM and see, you know, JD, I see JD's name, I click on, and it says member platform, I click on that, I go right to a record member platform, and that functionality. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1242.2">@20:42</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Well, I think you probably have a different set of users who would be using the CRM interface provided by CRM and the interface provided by member platform. </p> <p> You know, there's a CRM user permission or something like that, right, which you assign to users. So you want to be able to access CRM stuff, right? </p> <p> I don't know if those member platform users would have the CRM user permission. Maybe they have member platform permissions that let them access the member platform UI and the contact information that's exposed there. </p> <p> Access CRM, that's what it is, and it doesn't exist yet. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1288.4">@21:28</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> So just on the topic, we have to have something at the slash CRM path in order for breadcrumbs to work. </p> <p> And ideally, it would be some sort of dashboard in some finalized finished product. But CRM isn't like the final finished product. </p> <p> It's the building blocks. It's the basement foundation. So I took a look at how the admin path works and the different menu blocks. </p> <p> So it's something sort of like that. So I don't know, maybe member platform would have a block in there, but ideally member platform would maybe overwrite that path with something more graphical. </p> <p> Then here are some links, some descriptions. But interesting. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1350.67">@22:30</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> And thanks, JD. With Dahlia, you have nothing to add to Melissa, things to learn. Indeed. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1359.36">@22:39</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Oh, it doesn't end. Well, Steve, going back to your sort of things that need figuring out, right? So access policy versus grant systems, you've got a next step of talking to Nick about that. </p> <p> Contact type subtypes, you admittedly said. I'm putting it off. Yes, that is postponed. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1383.82">@23:03</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> It is. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1384.74">@23:04</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I mean, we should try to unstick that at some point, right? Because otherwise it will just continue. Like, I don't think the landscape is going to change so much as we just sort of need to start diving in. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1398.46">@23:18</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Well, I'd like to dive in after I've resolved the other item, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1406.07">@23:26</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> I only have so much time, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1407.95">@23:27</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, yeah, yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1410.08">@23:30</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I'm hoping that I'll be forced to make a particular decision based on how other things play out, but it's not. </p> <p> That does not appear to be the case. That does not seem to be happening. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1422.42">@23:42</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. I'm just figuring of the things here, like what is there to talk about, right, and make some sort of, you know, progress on? </p> <p> That could be one. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1432.66">@23:52</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> So going back to what I said before, so remember, do I go into CRM to get to member? Is or is Member Platform a standalone system that pulls the data in as what you said before? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1448.04">@24:08</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> For now, you're going to CRM. That's the only place to go. We haven't actually flushed out any requirements for a Member Platform UI of your contacts, right? </p> <p> Yes, Steve? I think Member Platform should be a site template. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1474.96">@24:34</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> That's where I'm at. I also think I should convert OpenAtrium to a site template. Or not OpenAtrium, OpenKnowledge. I mean, I'm not at the moment, but I will. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1495.89">@24:55</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. And I agree. There should be a Member Platform site. Possibly there should be more specific variations on member platform as site templates. </p> <p> Yeah, maybe some optional recipes that would be go along the neighborhood association site template, and here's the meetup group site template, and here's the... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1521.83">@25:21</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> I don't know. I haven't investigated yet. I'm doing this right now with a site template for some of our builds, and I haven't gone down the rabbit hole yet of, okay, how do I structure this so that I can have a bunch of optional recipes that someone would have access to? </p> <p> What's the right way to do that? kind of like the site template would be the basis, and then within that, there's a set of vetted recipes that someone could turn on within that site template. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1560.47">@26:00</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> That's the direction I'm going on right now. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1563.37">@26:03</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> And I'm not sure exactly how good that idea is, how maintainable that is. But, you know, once you do your site template and or your recipes in that site template, you're in individual config land. </p> <p> There's no upgrades to that stuff, right? So your site then at that point is managed in the configuration just like you do any other site builder. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1589.07">@26:29</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I think the key is that the things that are specific to the site template, like let's say that the meetup.com or the meetup.com recipe, right? </p> <p> The meetup recipe should be fairly limited in scope, right? Like most of the functionalities and dependencies, right? That are probably shared among other things and, you know, have upgrade paths, right? </p> <p> But you've got this view, right? And there's this config action that tweets. The wording of the thing over here and, you know, little stuff that, like, shouldn't need sort of maintenance over time, I think is sort of the idea. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1628.7">@27:08</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1631.7">@27:11</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Now, Event Platform takes the extreme approach of, more extreme approach of there's a whole bunch of stuff we're shipping, right, as part of that recipe, right? </p> <p> We've got content types and fields and this and that, right? And, like, some of that stuff, like, I don't think we're have content types in our site templates, right? </p> <p> But we might have some fields. I think another interesting point, I forget where this came up. I guess it was some discussion that we had about, I don't remember where it was, but about, like, Salesforce has, you know, different schemas for sets of fields that are semi-standardized. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1680.0">@28:00</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Something like that, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1681.9">@28:01</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Like, what's Drupal CRM's solution to that, right? A set of fields that the ecosystem can build on and, you rely upon. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1697.09">@28:17</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> At the moment, I don't is that a question that you want me to answer or is that just a statement? </p> <p> Question for anybody. So we do have a number of fields that come with CRM. So those are just de facto standard, right? </p> <p> You can remove the full name field and, like, the preferred name and the alias. Maybe we call it the alternative name. </p> <p> I don't know. You can remove those from the contact, from the person, but I don't think you can actually delete the fields. </p> <p> Like, you can go back in and, like, add existing fields and they'll still be listed there. I think that's the way to go to keep others from reusing those namespaces. </p> <p> That was also one of the reasons why I chose not to have it be field underscore as a prefix. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1755.89">@29:15</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Right. It should be CRM underscore. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1759.22">@29:19</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Well, it's not a CRM entity, so. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1762.78">@29:22</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Oh, sorry. What entity was this? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1765.7">@29:25</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Person contact bundle. Right. There's a full name field. It's the field. It's the name field type, but the machine name of it is full underscore name. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1779.44">@29:39</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Oh, I see. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1780.34">@29:40</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Well, I guess what I guess I'm then questioning, should it actually be CRM underscore? Oh, it's field underscore name, which doesn't have the field prefix. </p> <p> I see. OK, OK. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1792.71">@29:52</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. But you can't like I suppose you could remove them if you took them out. I can actually delete it in that way, but whatever. </p> <p> Yeah, like, you know, we're not stopping you from doing that, but there is some functionality that we do to integrate with name that's going to be moved into name 2.0, right? </p> <p> When we save the entity, when we save a person and it has a full name, we use a format to save the label field, right? </p> <p> The name field of the actual entity as a formatted version so that we can index it without any issues. </p> <p> Being able to do something like that seems like it should live in the name project, but I don't want to introduce it until a major version release. </p> <p> So it's not important, but just, right? So those are the fields that come out of the box, right? In terms of the other big projects, CRM. </p> <p> Membership, CRM case, those are going to mostly be focused around their respective entities of membership and case management, but they're going to provide some type of integration back to either relationships that they have bundles as dependencies or some other type of fields, I guess, for lack of a better word, but I don't have a definitive list. </p> <p> I think that's sort of how it's going to be. There's going to be some larger projects and then maybe, I don't think it really matters in terms of recipes, maybe if the recipes build upon each other, but they only really have to be aware of themselves, not like the ecosystem as a whole, in the same way that the sales force, I can't remember what they were called, but I know what. </p> <p> I know what URLs you're referring to. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1922.67">@32:02</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> What about like the demographic fields as an example? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1926.25">@32:06</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1926.87">@32:06</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Like sort of like a coherent set of fields that could do with some standardization, but should it live in CRM proper, even if not, you know, default applied to a bundle? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1943.44">@32:23</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> If it lives in CRM, it would probably be as a recipe. Maybe, maybe there might be an exception to that for one or two of them, but I really don't think so. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1957.86">@32:37</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I guess the alternative is it lives in like CRM demographics or something like that? Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1964.48">@32:44</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I mean, some of it is finding what the existing solutions in the community are. So for example, doing height, weight kind of stuff, there's a, I think it's called measures or something. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1981.54">@33:01</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I don't remember. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=1982.9">@33:02</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> There's a link to it. But it's a way for measuring those sort of physical parts of a body, right? </p> <p> So that seems like the best implementation that exists out there in the community. Probably shouldn't be a dependency. So how does it integrate? </p> <p> I don't know. So things like iColor are just going to be like select fields or, you know, some sort of core field. </p> <p> So it's not going to rely on like a third party module. But that still comes back to integration as possibly a recipe. </p> <p> But it doesn't seem like something that needs to come out of the base product. There might be an argument. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2028.06">@33:48</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Less in the base project. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2029.58">@33:49</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I mean, I don't have an exact example of any of the demographics that I say, yes, this one should be in here. </p> <p> But in terms of like coming up with a standard. I will say, right, , for example, there are sort of two existing standards out there that are widely adopted. </p> <p> One is used by governments for census data and I guess other stuff like that. And then the other one is around medical. </p> <p> The biggest difference is census data is stored as numerals, you know, as numbers. Men are one, women are two. </p> <p> Like zero is, doesn't identify or like unknown. Nine is like not applicable. So if it was like an organization, for example, not that you, not that we would put that field on there, but all systems are organized differently, right? </p> <p> And then medical uses letters, right? Males are M, females are F. It is just biological , right? These are the existing standards. </p> <p> So census looks like it's more widely adopted as a format, but medical seems like it's a better programming experience. </p> <p> But everything else is a jump ball, I guess, in terms of. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2128.94">@35:28</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Then I actually have a demographics issue, which I got to figure out how to solve. So the demographics, the government requires that be taken, but no one can view it into after a person's been hired. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2143.0">@35:43</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> All right. If you have. OK, so I explained this to JD and he's like, you're kidding me. No way. </p> <p> No way. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2153.8">@35:53</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I look forward to hearing what I said. Yeah, what did you say? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2160.0">@36:00</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> We have 50 employees or more, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2162.94">@36:02</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. Oh, I don't know to go on. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2166.74">@36:06</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> There is some five-letter acronym government committee that you submit statistics to, and this was passed in like the 70s. </p> <p> So the racial groups they give you are Black, North African slash Middle Eastern, right, Asian slash Native American, right, like these very outdated terms, but you're not legally required examples provided by the government agency, so de facto everyone uses them. </p> <p> And so the employees have the option to self-report into a particular demographic group, but if they do not provide an answer, you are required to make a best-educated guess. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2220.0">@37:00</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yes, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2226.88">@37:06</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Like, that's the law. Crazy. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2231.94">@37:11</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, we have a lot of those kind of laws. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2238.13">@37:18</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> So in terms of, I think, Scott, your question, yes, that is sort of one of the reasons why I put these demographic issues out there is to bring these needs to the center. </p> <p> But also, not only is that limited to the United States, it's limited to employers of 50 people or more. </p> <p> So it's not something that everyone's going to need, but it is a standard thing. So that would be, Bob, were you Googling it? </p> <p> Does anyone know the organization I'm talking about? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2268.14">@37:48</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> I'm Googling it up now. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2269.24">@37:49</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> I was not Googling it. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2271.4">@37:51</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> EEOC. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2272.44">@37:52</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> EEOC. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2273.16">@37:53</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Yes, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. So here's the... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2279.82">@37:59</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> EEOC. just... Scope. Presented as a separate section. All fields are optional. Access restricted, not visible to the administrator role. </p> <p> Access reporting purpose to be determined pending confirmation. So it's race, ethnicity, gender, and referral source. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2297.54">@38:17</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> So we've asked people this in the application. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2301.2">@38:21</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> They don't have to fill it out. We have to record it, and nobody can see it. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2306.1">@38:26</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> So there's another idea we've been kicking around for fieldable subtypes, where it's a lot more like the profile entity. </p> <p> I think we're calling them CRM contact details, at least at the moment, is a work in progress. That seems like some place where I would want to put that information, because it's logically grouped together, and you need to have specific access controls. </p> <p> The other part about this law, which is crazy. Is that we ask you, there's a question about whether you're Latino or not, or I think the term is Hispanic on there, or non-Hispanic. </p> <p> And that's treated, it appears like it's treated differently than the other options you're provided over on the other column. </p> <p> But if you choose Hispanic, they ignore what you select in the other box and treat it as it's a race. </p> <p> It's so crazy. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2369.96">@39:29</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> But if you do non-Hispanic, if you put Hispanic, but white, that seems also. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2377.07">@39:37</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I mean, we've lost Steve. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2384.19">@39:44</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> The demographics were too much for him. Oh, he's back. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2388.67">@39:48</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> So that would probably be like CRMEOC for a project namespace would be my guess. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2396.5">@39:56</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, it's very specific. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2398.16">@39:58</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> We need an entity or a place. To put those fields, right? It seems like a separate entity would be the best place from an access control perspective. </p> <p> Well, my plan for that is that if the field has data, to put an asterisk. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2419.68">@40:19</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> I don't know how else to see the field or encrypt them and de-encrypt them when they're needed. I don't know how they want it done. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2430.45">@40:30</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Well, let's not dive into the specifics of that, but it's an interesting example of standard set of fields that sort of should live somewhere, right? </p> <p> Both in a project and where those fields live, you know, architecturally. So I don't think I answered your question, but I took up a lot of time talking. </p> <p> I mean, it's a good example of... A use case for that sort of profile module concept, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2467.22">@41:07</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Although those are really only for employees, so I don't know, right? Maybe we don't need to get into those details. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2477.06">@41:17</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> You're thinking do they belong on a relationship because they're an employee of the organization? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2481.42">@41:21</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, but it's easier to prevent access if it's a different entity type with a different... These are why I don't want to deal with it now. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2492.04">@41:32</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, when it comes up, it's worth, you know, inspiring ourselves. So, like, I think the concept of a set of fields that gets associated with some contacts and not others, and, okay, maybe that's the sort of model of the profile module, I think that could apply to contacts, it could apply to relationships, right? </p> <p> Like, I could see that same concept of a profile. While existing in either place, right? No, I agree. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2526.77">@42:06</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I don't, you know, if it were easy, there'd already be an existing project. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2536.03">@42:16</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Well, there's just nothing supports contacts yet. All right. We've had some more people join since we started somewhat aimlessly. </p> <p> Does anybody have an update about any topic that they'd like to give? Start there. I expect it as much. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2574.12">@42:54</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> I was doing some work this weekend, but repainting the whole, scraping the, Anti-fowl paints and repaint the whole, now it takes over my Sunday when I was supposed to have it for free. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2587.15">@43:07</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I had a call with Adam John earlier this week, and we went through the member profile and member directory overview doc that he had put together. </p> <p> That is linked near the bottom of the meeting notes, if anybody wants to pop it open. I'm sorry, I was away from my desk for a second. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2608.19">@43:28</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Which one was that? Where was it linked at? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2611.19">@43:31</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Well, it's at the bottom of the meeting notes, but I will also stick the link here. Got Got it here in the Zoom. </p> <p> There we go. And so some of the terminology and stuff here is because of stuff that he is doing that's not member platform specific, right? </p> <p> So this is not strictly a member platform document. But I think that there are topics in here that are worth discussing as a group so that maybe we can even make some decisions. </p> <p> don't know. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2655.67">@44:15</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> By the way, tomorrow, I'm definitely hoping to finish up and testing a hierarchical system so that if you have an organizer, but under an organizer, you have an assistant, the assistant can change some fields for the organizer, even though it's above their permission level, the role level, without being a field-by-field basis. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2683.37">@44:43</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So for the member directory and member profile, there's this audience model that's proposed here of who sees stuff, anonymous visitors. </p> <p> There's logged in members or organizers. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2724.72">@45:24</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> The profile privacy module, you're talking about each profile as a privacy setting. And down below, it's saying that that is a field-level privacy setting. </p> <p> I think it's saying that there's both. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2740.53">@45:40</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So there's profile-level setting, and then there's also field-level privacy that follows the same model. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2749.07">@45:49</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> So additionally, then, I'm going to just suggest... Uh-huh. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2756.39">@45:56</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Are we suggesting... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2757.54">@45:57</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> yeah, we're suggesting. Okay. This is... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2760.01">@46:00</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> This is Adam's document. We can only suggest. I get it. That's fine. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2764.97">@46:04</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Additionally, field level privacy allows. I think that makes it more clear since there's two levels. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2772.44">@46:12</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Sure. This is good. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2784.6">@46:24</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I like what I'm reading so far. How does this fit with the CRM play on this? Because this is kind of related, right, to a degree? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2810.44">@46:50</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> CRM is not opinionated to date about field level permissions or some sort of privacy model for this stuff. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2820.01">@47:00</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Right. So would this be something that would be a member platform additional module on the CRM module? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2831.48">@47:11</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So I had that, Adam and I discussed that question, and I think where we netted out was perhaps there should be a, let's say, like CRM membership directory project or something like that, right, where this stuff lives, but it's really catered toward member platform's needs, but perhaps some other project could also take advantage of it. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2862.05">@47:42</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. And I see that there's the CRM membership contrib module listed in the module map. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2873.12">@47:53</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> That said, right, that said, also CRM membership, I'm not assuming that that's ready for R1.0. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2880.39">@48:00</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> So, yeah, I was talking to Steve. Are you still there? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2885.27">@48:05</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I'm still here. I would. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2887.09">@48:07</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> That was that was one that we talked about that you said isn't really ready yet. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2891.99">@48:11</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Are you going to revisit it? So in terms of, well, I guess, I don't know. There's not quite a bit there yet, but we do have ideas on what should be done in terms of what I've been doing. </p> <p> I've gone through the entire name field project. Right. That's one of our dependencies, just making sure the bugs are resolved. </p> <p> There's some stuff in CRM I need to resolve. And then, like, membership would be the priority. I don't know if that answered your question, Bob, or if I was just yapping. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2930.5">@48:50</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> No, it does kind of answer my question. With the name module, is that something that somewhere gets added into this module? </p> <p> Is it related, for instance, to profile? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2944.51">@49:04</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> The name field is a dependency that CRM has. So it's, I'm not, I don't think it's on this document, but. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2954.59">@49:14</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, gotcha. Okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2956.45">@49:16</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> And to take that question a step further, Bob, like, I'm not sure that this document should list any specific fields. </p> <p> Okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2964.75">@49:24</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Like, I think that might be outside the scope of this document. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2968.49">@49:28</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> However, the various fields that are out there, right, may need to be exposed in this member directory and on this member profile. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2976.67">@49:36</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. Right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=2978.69">@49:38</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Arbitrary fields to be chosen by the site builder. So. I mean, let me just ask some of the open issue questions here, right? </p> <p> For 1.0, do we ignore field-level privacy and just say it's going to be profile-level only, right, as a simplification? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3016.59">@50:16</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> No, because it has to be controlled by the organizer because you've got to assume that most people have no idea what they're doing. </p> <p> I think the fault should be by the profile, but it could be edited later on by someone above them because it's needed. </p> <p> Because, you know, you get people in my organization, they're clueless. They have no idea how any of that works. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3038.19">@50:38</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So there are two different sets of, like, privacy, right? One is at the profile level and one is at the field level. </p> <p> So at each, right, the proposal here is that organizers can decide which privacy. privacy settings are exposed to the members, right, for them to choose for their own profiles and which are set by the organizer. </p> <p> If exposed to the member, then the organizer can set what the default is. And they can do that for each of the profiles overall, right, and separately for fields, right, at the field level. </p> <p> So my question is, for the field level ones, do, for 1.0, do we simplify and say we're not going to address field level privacy in 1.0 because we need to ship something? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3100.05">@51:40</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Would, when you're asking about field level permission, would this be, could a site builder simply just use the field permission module to accomplish that? </p> <p> Or are you talking about, like, writing custom code or are talking about, like, just using an existing module? And having it pre-configured to... </p> <p> I guess I'm asking for clarification. I don't know what the mechanism would be to support the functionality. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3133.49">@52:13</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> The field permissions module, because it's not contact aware, I don't know whether that would necessarily be suitable. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3149.34">@52:29</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I think it's generic to work on any field for any entity, but it creates a permission, which... Right. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3161.81">@52:41</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. Is it the... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3164.75">@52:44</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I haven't looked at it in a while, so I'm not sure what the structure of that is. mean, if they had in there an author-level permission for that setting... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3177.77">@52:57</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Yes. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3180.01">@53:00</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> If we could make the content, the content could be authored by, you know, the organizer, for instance, if it's not a user. </p> <p> If it's a user, it could change the author. We could maybe change the author to be the contact or the user itself. </p> <p> We don't have an author for a contact, though, do we? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3202.47">@53:22</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> We just have it. We have the author of a revision. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3205.62">@53:25</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> We only have the revision user. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3209.58">@53:29</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> It builds like a mini version, a specific version for the fields you're talking, the fields for like an ACL thing where you can check off who can change what. </p> <p> So you can offer your contents. You can create your own, create your own content, create other people's content, and so forth. </p> <p> But I agree with JD. For 1.0, let's get it out. Thank you. Site builder needs it. They can still feel permissions and go the hard way. </p> <p> Later on, we can add a YAML file or something else that want to make the process. Or another means, they'll go and analyze the fields in CRM or the member platform and build it out so it's a little easier to use. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3260.14">@54:20</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I err on the side of simplicity for 1.0. However, I do wonder, is the model something that we should figure out as far as how this would be stored in case there's some reason that sort of affects the overall direction and architecture here? </p> <p> And related to this whole member profile, member directory, this document doesn't, I think, touch on how the site builder chooses which fields are exposed. </p> <p> Right, certainly another level of effort to get that field level thing in there, that's for sure. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3307.73">@55:07</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> So I guess I would be on board with postponing that to another version. I think it would simplify things a little bit and, again, get us where we can ship something quicker. </p> <p> I'm just adding a comment. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3333.57">@55:33</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> How do site builders slash organizers choose which fields are exposed in the profile slash directory? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3348.43">@55:48</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3369.67">@56:09</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Adam brought up an interesting idea of should the organizer role ship as some reusable thing outside of member platform, or should it be a member platform-specific concept? </p> <p> I'm not strongly moving in the direction of it being a separate thing, but I thought I'd ask the group, do people see a value in that, in building more functionality, not member platform-specific, having to do with the concept of an organizer? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3400.03">@56:40</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> We're just talking about that organizer role being part of the regular roles and permissions in the site, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3416.27">@56:56</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> We're talking about it. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3417.51">@56:57</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> I mean, if it's applied as a... As a role, it's going to be a role that's listed in the roles and permissions in core, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3426.74">@57:06</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> The question is, is that thing member platform specific or its own, you know, module that gets depended on by member platform and other things? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3438.15">@57:18</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I think we would have to know what those other things were before we could make an argument for it. </p> <p> For the time being, I think it can only be a member, right? Where else would it live, right? Like, maybe somewhere in the future. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3452.19">@57:32</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> More in the future with my idea. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3456.29">@57:36</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Hey, Adam, welcome. We were just talking about going through the member profile document. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3469.17">@57:49</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Cool. Good. Yeah, sorry. I was unavoidably distracted. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3475.64">@57:55</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> All good. You should be aware of your echo when people talk. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3480.01">@58:00</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I'll stay on mute as much as possible. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3486.51">@58:06</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So just to catch you up, we talked about, we just went over the simplification question, and we said for 1.0, let's not deal with field level privacy. </p> <p> We added a note about how do site builders or organizers actually choose which fields get exposed in the profile or directory? </p> <p> And we were just talking about the organizer role question, and I feel like we're kind of landing on absence-specific rationale to do so, like known use cases outside of member platform, organizer probably ships with member platform. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3527.35">@58:47</a> - <strong>Bob Snodgrass</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3529.45">@58:49</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, well, that makes sense. That's cool. Was there a, what was the... Yeah, is there anything, I know that you and I spoke earlier this week, JD, is there anything that, where you guys were looking for another two cents, or is it all pretty much in the bucket? </p> <p> I think folks are on board with this. Just the things we mentioned. Yeah. Good, good. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3566.15">@59:26</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> And we didn't talk about the profile model and what model do we use for sets of fields on a compact. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3579.82">@59:39</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Did or did not? Sorry. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3581.9">@59:41</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> We did. We didn't come to any sort of outcome there. To Steve's point, there are many considerations around how that stuff gets represented. </p> <p> Um, and I'm, I don't know whether that applies to that. To this or not, which goes to the question of how do you choose which fields are exposed? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3614.35">@1:00:14</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Okay. Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. Steve, I know you have probably some thoughts around what JD was just talking about. </p> <p> What's your take on it? Not to put it on the spot. Are we still being recorded or no? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3639.16">@1:00:39</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. Oh, okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3642.28">@1:00:42</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> All right. Oh, shoot. Hold on one second. I'm sorry. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3648.29">@1:00:48</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Do folks have any thoughts on the URL paths for things here, both in section one and also in section five? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3660.77">@1:01:00</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I don't have strong opinions, per se, but I don't also know where those entities would live, so I can't really say. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3673.45">@1:01:13</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> You mean like what project it lives in? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3675.77">@1:01:15</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, and like what other use cases it could have. Like if it's only in CRM, it would make sense to have it in a CRM path. </p> <p> Just that access CRM permission would not let you in if you don't have it. I mean, you could have the administer CRM permission as well instead, but that's sort of a. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3700.82">@1:01:40</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I mean, I think the, so the member directory, right, I think clearly doesn't live in the CRM path. </p> <p> It's not. I wouldn't think so. The organizer one here has, is proposed as admin slash members. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3722.4">@1:02:02</a> - <strong>Eric Wheeler</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I put a comment there saying maybe it should be something else to separate who's an actually site admin and who's an organizer admin to avoid confusion. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3741.0">@1:02:21</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. Also, I agree with that. And also, I'm thinking about, okay, there's this CRM membership project, which is going to ship presumably some list of member functionality, right? </p> <p> You know, that would presumably be a CRM namespace, you know, prefix in the path. How is this different? I guess because it's effectively the member platform-specific stuff, right? </p> <p> Right. Sorry, Adam. you mute when other people talk? Thank you. So we were just talking about the paths up in Section 1 here and talking about the &ndash; we like members up here for those guys, but the organizers one, we're kind of trying to think through. </p> <p> Presumably the CRM membership module provides a CRM slash members or something like that path, but that's not sort of member platform aware, right? </p> <p> And here we're talking about the member platform functionality. Where does that belong? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3823.58">@1:03:43</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I think we should just integrate it with PathAlias and make it a site builder question. Booyah. Make it a what? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3833.14">@1:03:53</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> A site builder decision, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3836.07">@1:03:56</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Just integrate the entity with PathAlias so that even if It is like slash something slash something slash 10. You could just make it forward slash members or whatever you want it to be. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3851.29">@1:04:11</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> What's the thing you're referring to? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3853.83">@1:04:13</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Patholism. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3855.49">@1:04:15</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Go ahead, Steve. It's just a module with court. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3859.89">@1:04:19</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> No, no. I mean, what entity are you proposing has that path? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3865.01">@1:04:25</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> There seems to be an entity for member profile or member directory. I don't know. Maybe I'm not understanding correctly. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3875.44">@1:04:35</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I think we don't know that yet, right? Like, do we have an entity that represents the member profile? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3882.96">@1:04:42</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I think it might just... No, that's not been explicitly said. So that's a, yeah, I think Steve's approach of arching core and or existing is obviously one that I would agree with, but we don't know exactly what's being aliased or identified. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3904.26">@1:05:04</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, well, it's a good question of, you know, is the member profile on the membership entity or is it on the contact entity, right, that we're kind of basing it off of? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3922.41">@1:05:22</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I guess it's a matter of order operations. We can't really cycle on paths until we have a more architectural done, until we figure out where these things are living, how things are coming together a little bit more. </p> <p> I think that's probably where we're at. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3938.45">@1:05:38</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> fair. What other open issues do we have here? We have some down under section five. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=3958.61">@1:05:58</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I was thinking about... How to implement hierarchical relationships. My two thoughts are we can treat it sort of like a field, like an entity reference field, and you can just reference the relationships that are like, you know, if you have a parent-child relationship, it can just reference, you know, the parent's parent. </p> <p> Right. Well, that's maybe not the best example since you have two parents usually, but I guess we would also have to incorporate that scenario too, right? </p> <p> And like supervisor and subordinate is, I guess, maybe the simplest. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4011.23">@1:06:51</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So stepping back, because I know exactly where you're going with that, right? I think maybe a useful decision for us to attempt to make is to say, </p> <p> Is this member directory and member profile project something that is trying to provide a solution generic enough to support, like, let's say, an org chart kind of case, right? </p> <p> Or like a corporate directory kind of case, which I think is where that hierarchical relationship art that's come in, right? </p> <p> Maybe. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4046.6">@1:07:26</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I don't know if this requires a hierarchy for a member directory, but it would for, like, a corporate directory. </p> <p> And I'm building up right now. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4058.05">@1:07:38</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> It's on for my today, tomorrow, part of Saturday. Literally a corporate hierarchical system where you have the companies, the main entity, and under that you have presidents, vice presidents, going down to managers and down the whole system and what they can and can't control. </p> <p> And making it so diverse because every company works differently. So that's useful. I can just show how it's done, put the models together. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4088.2">@1:08:08</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I mean, to try to answer my own question, like, I kind of err on the side of let's keep this simple and not try to broaden the scope to support any list of contacts based on our arbitrary criteria, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4103.8">@1:08:23</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. Otherwise, like every other software project starts off simple and gets complicated. Arbitrary criteria is my favorite criteria. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4114.98">@1:08:34</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> What's your favorite criteria you said, Steve? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4117.82">@1:08:37</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Arbitrary. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4119.9">@1:08:39</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I mean, it's pretty simple as a directive. Boil the ocean. That's three words. I mean, what's hard about that? </p> <p> Sarcasm. Sorry. would you like? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4131.06">@1:08:51</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> How much tea would you like? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4132.94">@1:08:52</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, how much tea would you like? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4137.29">@1:08:57</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> How do people feel about saying, This thing we're talking about is just focused on exposing information about members. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4154.03">@1:09:14</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, and I think that comes to a really a central piece to the member platform itself is that we identify within member platform what is a member. </p> <p> So and that's that's essential, right? What we build on top of that is is, you know, the member directory member profile is on top of that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4175.38">@1:09:35</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> We need that deeper structure, but we're JD, let's get it going on, get people to adapt it and add features because people always like new features anyhow. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4198.29">@1:09:58</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I might have missed the piece to go. Yeah, that statement, Scott, but that presupposes that there's a module that we're talking about that's a member platform type module. </p> <p> Did we land at that at some point? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4213.49">@1:10:13</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> We were discussing that before, whether or not a member platform is a standalone module or an add-on to CRM. </p> <p> Or a site template. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4222.63">@1:10:22</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Or a site template. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4224.64">@1:10:24</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I think there's place for all of it at some point. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4228.26">@1:10:28</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> It's really a matter of what's the first piece we want to buy out. Sorry, JD, I knew you want to talk. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4231.8">@1:10:31</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> No, no. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4232.22">@1:10:32</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Also, when I had my camera on, I was having latency issues, so I needed to go with that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4238.27">@1:10:38</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I mean, I think that there probably should be a pretty thin member platform, you know, module. I think, as we discussed before you joined, Adam, yes, recipes and site templates also, right? </p> <p> And then as it relates to member directory and member... Profile, I feel like this is a good candidate for CRM membership directory and profile or something like that, right? </p> <p> And it's more member platform opinionated, but is put somewhere that's a little more reusable than just the member platform project. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4281.3">@1:11:21</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Right. That makes sense. That's beginning to take shape as far as really, it feels like two right now pretty light pieces. </p> <p> One, in essence, a member platform module that has a relationship to a CRM member platform module. feels like those are the two pieces we're kind of calling out, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4306.95">@1:11:46</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I don't know if this is the right wording. Is it CRM membership directory? That's good thing. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4315.85">@1:11:55</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Hagole or Steve probably has very strong opinions on what that should be and I would follow. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4322.09">@1:12:02</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> And my feeling is always the CRM should be the base citation of the contact, and then you had other things that speak to it and pull the data from, but the CRM can lead you to the other data. </p> <p> And don't try and keep CRM as simple as possible and not have tons of submenus and things under it. </p> <p> It's easy just to link to the module that does a distinct function. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4347.61">@1:12:27</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I think that's a fair call out. And principally, I think we're all in agreement about that, Scott. Exactly what that, I don't know the right term, connector module, glue module, whatever. </p> <p> Whatever, exactly what that does, I think Steve and whoever's working on it would be the best candidates to work that out. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4369.24">@1:12:49</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> I've been calling it glue also. I'm sorry? I've been calling it glue also. Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4377.24">@1:12:57</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> It holds everything together. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4378.64">@1:12:58</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4380.64">@1:13:00</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So thinking a little more, one of the things we talked about is this organizer role. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4386.28">@1:13:06</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> We said that that is a member platform-specific concept. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4389.42">@1:13:09</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> If that's a member platform-specific concept, and we rely on it for member directory and member profile for permissions and stuff, then does this not belong in a more reusable place than something member platform-specific? </p> <p> Should this be member platform directory? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4415.41">@1:13:35</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I think I fall in the bucket that the directory is really a subset of functionality to the member platform itself, and that we, you know, and defining a role when that module is installed is basic, right? </p> <p> So I think that's kind of where I'm thinking about it. So the organizer role exists in And maybe there's functionality that will build into member platform itself right now under the member platform member directory area. </p> <p> They would eventually maybe be pulled into a submodule or something. But, you know, just bigger picture, think those pieces fit into the member platform module, right? </p> <p> Am I making sense? Did I answer your question? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4463.09">@1:14:23</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> You are. I think you are. I think where you're leading me and where I like to be led is that, yes, maybe this is a submodule of member platform itself. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4473.66">@1:14:33</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, but it's probably too soon. I would think, and certainly, but I'll defer to whatever the group thinks, might be too soon to pull that out because we're trying to keep member platform pretty light. </p> <p> That's, you know, architecturally it's the ideal, but I think until there's more meat, we might want to keep that all together. </p> <p> Because there's other things, there's other mechanics that are going to be worked out as we work on this that I think might be... </p> <p> Better suited to, you know, one module. But I defer to whatever the group thinks. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4507.87">@1:15:07</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> You're questioning whether this should be a submodule or just part of the member platform base module? It's scale, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4516.17">@1:15:16</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> So yeah, I think longer term, bigger picture, it makes sense as a submodule. Absolutely. But it's a matter of, I don't know who else in the room has worked with companies everywhere from the one person to the, you know, 10,000 people. </p> <p> But things are very different when you're talking about one person versus 10,000. It's the same thing in code and modules, is that if we're talking about keeping it simple and light, having essentially what we're talking about now is three modules, the main module, submodule, and the glue module. </p> <p> That's a lot of architecture for a light implementation at the outset. That's my opinion. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4554.77">@1:15:54</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I have a question about this directory. Um, what need is it fulfilling that wouldn't be met with a view? </p> <p> I don't know, let's say with a card display because I like cards or something or any display that you like. </p> <p> Yeah, I think that's fair, Steve. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4576.67">@1:16:16</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> one of the, we, we identified a couple of things in that doc when you have a chance, I don't know if you have a chance to review it, but there's a couple of things in there that are definitely, uh, fall into this. </p> <p> This doesn't exist. Uh, the bits and bytes don't exist, um, in that way. But, uh, yeah, I think what I would say is an answer to that isn't, isn't, I'm sorry, it's a little bit of a sideways answer, is, uh, using Fuse and the built-in capabilities is always going to be our preference. </p> <p> Um, the, the members profile member directory is a, is a submodular or part of the member profile, uh, member, uh, module at the outset is, uh, the, the key definition I don't think is, is a view or a card. </p> <p> It's things like. Is my profile visible in the directory and is that something that the organizer or admin can super override or the rules around that and permissions around that, just as one example. </p> <p> Does that kind of answer your question, Steve? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4646.46">@1:17:26</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> You're muted, Steve. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4647.06">@1:17:27</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> And to me, another reason to have a member platform is kind of standalone pulling data from CRM because not everything in CRM are members. </p> <p> You may have contacts for, you know, if you're community-based, the people you get your permits from and vendors or any other contacts. </p> <p> That does not need to be the member platform at all, only members. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4674.42">@1:17:54</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. The more I'm thinking about this, I really, I do think that this member. directory member profile stuff belongs as a submodule of member platform, and that the only thing that we've identified so far that would live in the, you know, the main module, let's say, is this organizer role. </p> <p> Those are the concrete things that we've come up with so far that I feel like arguably belong in a member platform-based project. </p> <p> And I agree with that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4705.95">@1:18:25</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> And then you build onto that as you need for your organization, because it's different for everyone. I mean, your organization for your block, for your local community, may not need to know if they have water safety regulations. </p> <p> There's no reason to put that type of functionality, you know, qualifications anywhere except where people need it. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4737.79">@1:18:57</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So. Given that we don't have CRM membership yet, right, and we've said at a high level, like, hey, for 1.0, like, we're happy enough saying that all contacts are considered members. </p> <p> If they exist as contacts, they're members for 1.0. Like, on that basis, I feel like we've got enough to go forward and say, hey, here's our organizer role. </p> <p> Here's our views. Here's a &ndash; we've to figure out a way to select the fields that should be part of the profile and the privacy model. </p> <p> I don't think we're blocked on those things if we just kind of work under the assumption that we're just basing everything on the contact ID to start, and eventually this will adopt, you know, CRM membership's model for defining who a member is. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4795.53">@1:19:55</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> I agree with all that except that all members of CRM &ndash; and &ndash; and Contacts in CRM should not be members. </p> <p> There should be a toggle in CRM to say if they go to member platform or not. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4809.09">@1:20:09</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Is it a toggle in CRM? What is that surface exactly? I think that's kind of a stevish kind of question. </p> <p> Because you're saying a toggle that links to CRM. And just the semantic difference there makes sense. you know what I mean? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4825.51">@1:20:25</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> In CRM, there should be a toggle when you install member platform or anything else. Do you want to see this? </p> <p> In member platform, in party platform, or anything else. Because not every contact in CRM is a member. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4844.89">@1:20:44</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Right. Which comes back to what's the function of CRM versus what's the function of member platform. And then we were saying earlier the member platform function is defining what is a member, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4855.33">@1:20:55</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Which means that the toggle you're talking about is owned by member platform, not by CRM. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4860.01">@1:21:00</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> But again, we're talking about semantic differences, that it matters where the code goes, and that's really what... understand. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4866.63">@1:21:06</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> To me, as I said, I'm building a CRM that's a thousand of contacts in it, but they may not, some will show up in directories, some will... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4875.57">@1:21:15</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> The principle of what you're saying, I think we're all in agreement on, right? It's just a matter of, again, we're fleshing about, I think basically the underlying thing here is architecture, which, you know... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4888.51">@1:21:28</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> So then it comes to this, in the member platform, it shows all the contacts, you should check off ones that don't show in the member platform, and every time you load that, it refreshes with all the ones that are new, that don't have a checkmark on them. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4909.64">@1:21:49</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So the first question I'm hearing is, should we revisit the assumption that member platform 1.0, we've said all contacts are members, and I'm hearing... </p> <p> from Scott that he would like to revisit that because he has a use case where he really does, like, he can't use member platform if it assumes all contacts are members, right? </p> <p> And so if we go down that path, right, how do we represent which contacts are members is sort of the next question until such time as CRM membership is, you know, something we can adopt. </p> <p> All right. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4944.77">@1:22:24</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Well said, JD. I understand what Adam's saying is you put that in member platform, but that means every time you load member platform has to go through and check it, and then you uncheck the ones you don't want to be there. </p> <p> It's easier if there's a put in CRM and a new contact to check it at that point. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4967.0">@1:22:47</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I think that's a strong one there, Scott. It doesn't mean you have to go through and check it every time. </p> <p> You can pull from the database there as well. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4975.73">@1:22:55</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> yeah, I think we need to just define, look, if we're I'm forward to If we're going to decide that we're going to track whether contacts are members in 1.0, how are we going to do so? </p> <p> Right. And that's a bigger question, right? Does it belong in a relationship? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4994.7">@1:23:14</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Does it belong as a field? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4996.0">@1:23:16</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Exactly what I was going to say. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=4997.02">@1:23:17</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yep. Keep going. Keep going. That's all I got. No, you're exactly correct. You know, defining where that lives exactly and precisely in the data is important, right? </p> <p> I I think it's a relationship, but that's an item in the CRM membership backlog. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5016.64">@1:23:36</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I guess we would take the make a relationship with the machine named CRM membership, the namespace it or something. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5027.88">@1:23:47</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Can you talk about that a little more, Steve? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5030.5">@1:23:50</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> So, right. We want to be able to track memberships in more than one organization. I don't know. Let's say you're the... </p> <p> You're organizer for ACME nonprofit, right? But you're also the local organizer for the regional ACME nonprofit. And maybe they're different memberships. </p> <p> And, you know, maybe the majority of them are going to be going to one, but not the other. But, like, do you still need to track that information maybe differently? </p> <p> I don't know. Yeah, I get what you're saying as far as the use case. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5068.24">@1:24:28</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> And, yes, I tend to agree that the idea of a member lives on the relationship entity or integrally tied to the relationship entity. </p> <p> Really, the question is, is it another relationship entity itself, or is it something that's tied to the relationship that exists between the contact and the organization? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5095.28">@1:24:55</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Or give you a perfect example. Does that make sense, Steve? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5099.58">@1:24:59</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, it would be. The relationship would always be between a person and an organization. So, right, you might have a personal membership to the YMCA, but we also want to have the ability to grant membership to an organization based off of a relationship you have to another contact that has membership. </p> <p> So if your household is a member of the YMCA, all of your children can also be members because they are members of your household. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5137.88">@1:25:37</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> And then you also have chapters or use the YMCA, you might have to sign up for swimming and swim up for a field trip, two separate ones. </p> <p> So how do you put that together? Yeah, yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5152.84">@1:25:52</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> And that's a further fleshing out of what Steve was saying, Scott. But, Steve, um, I think I get where you're going with that. </p> <p> I want to try to articulate it because there's some stuff I have in my head that I'm not perfectly clear on. </p> <p> So, I mean, the idea of a membership existing when there's a hierarchical relationship between two, call them contacts, then the parent, and I'm going to just do parent-child because it's easier. </p> <p> But the parent relationship owns that membership as opposed to the child relationship. But we can still say that the child has a membership. </p> <p> Is that correct syntactically? I think that's dangerous territory. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5206.54">@1:26:46</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> So if, like, who owns it, who's paying for it, right, is one question. And it could be an organization, right, not a person. </p> <p> And, like, what would an organization-level membership Membership in something looked like, right? When all of your employees or like some number of employees then get access. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5231.05">@1:27:11</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I'm sorry, I don't mean to cut you off, but I do want to kind of keep from going too far down this rabbit hole. </p> <p> I think what you're speaking to there is membership types. And if we were to define the simplest membership type, and this is what we want for this version, the simplest membership type, only one ever exists on a given relationship for a given user. </p> <p> And the child hierarchical thing, I think, gets worked out when we flesh out more complex membership types. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5258.63">@1:27:38</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Does that make sense? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5262.96">@1:27:42</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I agree with that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5264.1">@1:27:44</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> The there yet to do the like relationship-based membership. So de facto, you are correct. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5273.01">@1:27:53</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> But I want to be very clear. I think we can put a useful stake in the ground, right, and say the CRM membership. </p> <p> Module is going to support all sorts of use cases that are going to be useful to member platform longer term, right? </p> <p> But realistically, are we going to get that module to a point where we can use it for member platform 1.0, like kind of in time? </p> <p> I think there's a lot of complexity and kind of question marks there. And so I'd like to say, hey, until such time as we're confident in that, we should make a simplification and say something like there's this field that gets added to the person, you know, bundle by member platform that is simply a flag for are they a current member, right? </p> <p> Or something like that, right? That people can add other fields and logic that kind of toggle that on or off for their specific needs, right? </p> <p> Until such time as we have a more specific membership tracking solution. But that allows the functionality like member directory, member profile to move forward to say we have this concept of what a member is. </p> <p> It's what. And this field is toggled on, right, that determines whether somebody shows up, right, in this interface. And then we improve upon that down the line. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5350.53">@1:29:10</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I think there's some very important architectural lines around what you just said. The place where you said it would live is, in essence, the user or contact. </p> <p> And if that were the case, then I think it gets very quickly to a point of a degree of fragility that's potentially dangerous. </p> <p> But the initial point being on that relationship and relying on that CRM use and management of that relationship is, </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5408.44">@1:30:08</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So I think we should avoid using the term user for most of it if we can, right? think we're talking about contact, not user, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5416.4">@1:30:16</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Correct, yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5417.24">@1:30:17</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Okay, so I just want to make sure we're not talking about different things. Yeah, we're not. I'm not tied to that simple model, right, if there's just a field on the contact for 1.0. </p> <p> I could absolutely see using a relationship. Good, then, yeah, you make a good cutout there in saying that the &ndash; does this exist as a field or something else on the relationship entity is in essence where I think your question was. </p> <p> I'm just saying even simpler, like this could just be a field on the contact, right? I don't think it has to be. </p> <p> could be a relationship, right, that, yes, know, is this an active relationship or something, right? the status of the relationship 1, right? </p> <p> As a field on the contact. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5460.01">@1:31:00</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> You get into having, you know, entity relationships and other, like that gets into a complex set of fields, not, it's, it doesn't stay as a single. </p> <p> you want an ability to track fields about the, about the. Right. Yeah. It gets into a complex set very quickly. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5477.8">@1:31:17</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Fair enough. You've won me over just with that. Okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5481.38">@1:31:21</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I agree. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5482.54">@1:31:22</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> For the first MVP coming out of the thing, just all the contacts are just easier and quicker. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5490.19">@1:31:30</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Well, here's my next, here's my follow-up question, kind of splitting the difference, right? So CRM, Steve, correct me if I'm wrong, currently ships with a member relationship, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5501.94">@1:31:41</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> It does. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5506.38">@1:31:46</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> If we just said that, and it's active as our definition for member platform of who a member is, like, is that, does anybody foresee any challenges with that approach for 1.0? </p> <p> I am. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5520.01">@1:32:00</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Enough understanding of CRM, but Steve, in your explanation there that I want to hear, can you help also those of us that don't understand what is that relationship used for out of the box? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5533.27">@1:32:13</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> We had this conversation about whether or not all contacts would be members about a year ago, maybe not quite a year ago, let's say eight months ago. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5544.15">@1:32:24</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> So that was you being corrective? And I said, you know what, how about if I just ship a relationship called member? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5552.21">@1:32:32</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> And so I guess my question to JD is that there is an item in the backlog about removing relationships as default content. </p> <p> In terms of which relationship to use when implementing CRM membership, I don't know if the machine name should be member and use the one that ships with CRM. </p> <p> And if you were using it for something else, well... Go F yourself. We're using it now, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5585.49">@1:33:05</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> It's a bit aggressive. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5587.43">@1:33:07</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> But the other option would be to ship with our own machine name, like CRM underscore membership. But then, you know, like an instance of that? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5601.95">@1:33:21</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Is that like an instance of that that you're talking about? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5607.07">@1:33:27</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I'm talking about a name for bundles, for relationships. Okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5614.25">@1:33:34</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So I think it's a good call out, Steve, right? And I did open an issue on CRMs proposing that we not ship relationships, relationship entities, like content entities, right, with CRM. </p> <p> And I think I still prefer that. Like, I think that I don't think, I think there's value in the CRM base project not having to fiddle. </p> <p> with, like, what relationships are installed out of the box, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5647.14">@1:34:07</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I think we can probably find some sort of appropriate ground concerning household and relationships there. And, right, so really the question is, do you want member to remain as a relationship, or do you want to get rid of it at some point in the future? </p> <p> Because if you want to get rid of it at some point in the future, the machine name will then be CRM underscore membership, as the relationship that CRM membership will use for that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5677.6">@1:34:37</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I mean, I like the idea of a default there, Steve. JD, I want you to see what you're going to say, but I was going to say, Steve, that I like the idea of a default there based on that household common use case and having the simplest possible base use cases. </p> <p> So that's, I like where I understand things to be right now, but, JD, what you going to say? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5699.48">@1:34:59</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> No. And I agree, and I think in that issue, I'm not looking at it right now, but I think I probably said, hey, yeah, I could probably be swayed by the household relationship argument for inclusion in CRM because, look, we ship this household entity. </p> <p> It's like it's the only thing kind of clearly about that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5721.49">@1:35:21</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Well, so member would then be sort of the equivalent for an organization, but that's not the same thing as membership. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5729.85">@1:35:29</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I would actually probably suggest preserving member as that household one, and then the ones beyond it don't come as CRM underscore membership, but rather come as member underscore organization. </p> <p> That would be the kind of direction I would go with it. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5744.23">@1:35:44</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> You're saying the member that comes is something I'm not accounting for. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5748.99">@1:35:48</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Sorry, JD. household. Right, yeah, because I think the default relationship we're talking about is a household one, and that exists even within larger, more complex. </p> <p> So keeping that and changing that arbitrarily based on this is an organization using member, I think would be dangerous. </p> <p> So keeping that base relationship capability around household, and that's what member is at the get-go, because that's what comes out of the box. </p> <p> And then everything else comes after that is member underscore organization or member underscore super widget or whatever. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5785.37">@1:36:25</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> Well, you're probably correct in a perfect universe, but the game is already member underscore household. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5798.49">@1:36:38</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> That's fine. Yeah, I can be swayed. I'm easy. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5803.42">@1:36:43</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So to answer your question, Steve, about do I think that there should be a general member relationship as part of CRM itself? </p> <p> I think no. Ideally, that is handled by this. CRM membership module, and that that provides the relevant relationship. And I would add an asterisk as I'm talking and saying, unless we think that CRM should provide simply the base representation of that relationship, and then CRM membership does all the wizardry on top of it, right? </p> <p> So that you could choose to say, actually, I don't want CRM membership to provide all this membership-related functionality using this relationship. </p> <p> I want XYZ membership to provide that additional functionality, right? I could see people wanting to use this concept of a membership relationship in a way that is different than CRM membership's approach. </p> <p> Or they could just create their own relationship, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5875.42">@1:37:55</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. I see where you're going with that, JD. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5880.23">@1:38:00</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> What was that, Adam? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5881.97">@1:38:01</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> No, I was just echo-chambering. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5884.93">@1:38:04</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I see where you're going with that, JD. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5889.63">@1:38:09</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> So it sounds like you would then want to use CRM membership as the machine name for the relationship you would use to track if you want to try to line up that CRM membership. </p> <p> That's redundant. Yes, I think so, but it brings me back to the question of, for 1.0, because CRM membership's got a whole bunch of stuff that it's concerned with, right? </p> <p> We should ask these questions maybe in the meeting two weeks from now that I won't be in. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5920.75">@1:38:40</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Or no, I will be in the one two weeks from now. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5925.67">@1:38:45</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> But a particular university has a need for CRM membership, which might accelerate its development. I see what you're saying. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5936.79">@1:38:56</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Interesting. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5940.32">@1:39:00</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I think also it would be possible to constrain the requirements of CRM membership to be very basic for like a 1.0 of that, right, of CRM membership, and then... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5955.02">@1:39:15</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I mean, I don't want to get like, well, 1.10 maybe, or 1.01, but I don't want to like, you know, famous last words, but it doesn't seem as complicated as we initially thought, right? </p> <p> I know, famous last words, but it's relying on CRM to have a number of features that it may not have when it first releases, like access based off of relationships. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=5989.96">@1:39:49</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> For member platform 1.0, right, if we move beyond the requirement of just all contacts or members, and we say we need some way to represent whether... </p> <p> I think also it would be possible to constrain the requirements of CRM membership to be very basic for like a 1.0 of that, right, of CRM membership, and then... </p> <p> I mean, I don't want to get like, well, 1.10 maybe, or 1.01, but I don't want to like, you know, famous last words, but it doesn't seem as complicated as we initially thought, right? </p> <p> I know, famous last words, but it's relying on CRM to have a number of features that it may not have when it first releases, like access based off of relationships. </p> <p> For member platform 1.0, right, if we move beyond the requirement of just all contacts or members, and we say we need some way to represent whether... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6060.01">@1:41:00</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Our contact is a member. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6062.13">@1:41:02</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> And we say our preferred approach is to represent that as a relationship. And we're eventually planning to adopt CRM membership. </p> <p> I guess my next question is, can we simply move forward CRM membership to simply providing, like, can we get like a 1.0 release of CRM membership that doesn't do all the fancy stuff that it's trying to do and just provides that relationship that we can then rely upon and continue to rely upon as we adopt the additional features that CRM membership will provide? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6098.44">@1:41:38</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> It feels like, before you answer that question that I really want to know the answer to, it feels like you're collapsing things into one module, which I kind of like, JD, based on what I saying before. </p> <p> Is that where you're going? I mean, for now, we all understand that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6115.07">@1:41:55</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I'm saying when you say collapsing things, which things are my collapsing? Code. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6120.01">@1:42:00</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I'm saying CRM membership should be where membership tracking stuff lives, right? Like that's already kind of the vision. And for member platform 1.0, we say we would like CRM membership to come out quickly with a 1.0 release that doesn't do anything fancy. </p> <p> Our only requirement is that it provides the relationship that we want to depend on, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6150.79">@1:42:30</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> And then we'll, we know additional great functionality will come later that we want to adopt. Let me ask you a question. </p> <p> When CRM membership is uninstalled, should it also remove that relationship? Or should it have that relationship be optional in the event that you, I don't know, uninstalled and reinstalled the module? </p> <p> I don't have a strong opinion, but. I lean toward preservation of data. So I, you So if the relationship then is optional in terms of like which config directory they go in, you can just use the namespace and we'll just assume that it's possible that that already exists when the module gets installed. </p> <p> So it just works. But I mean, maybe there is a counter argument. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6205.66">@1:43:25</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I mean, it feels like a bit of a strange pattern to us to sort of assume that this module will have an entity under a relationship entity under a certain machine name. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6226.88">@1:43:46</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Can you do that specifically for me, JD? Because I'm not picturing what you're saying. Assume that this module has an entity. </p> <p> Which module are you talking about? Sorry. Yeah. So I think what Steve personally makes sure I understand what Steve is proposing. </p> <p> He's saying if CRM membership module makes the assumption that the CRM underscore membership relationship entity may already exist in the system, then member platform could simply ship with applying configuration that creates that same CRM underscore membership entity without depending on CRM membership for the time being. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6269.22">@1:44:29</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, why not? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6270.72">@1:44:30</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I mean, you're gonna have to update the recipe or whatever it is, when CRM membership is ready to add it. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6278.4">@1:44:38</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> you know, no, Steve, I don't know, adding, you know, to the end of something doesn't make it more persuasive. </p> <p> I have a question that might also help to further, you know, mess things up. Who's writing the code? I know there are some needs in the room, and I know that several have been called out, and there are probably even some that are obviously not in the room, but it feels like there's a couple of things that are kind of looming, and what are the most immediate needs that are going to have people put code somewhere, and how does that align to what we're talking about? </p> <p> I'm planning to use my buddy Claude to help. Okay, Scott, okay, that's one thing, but I mean, that's you offering to contribute, that's great, but Jamie, it feels like you're going to have an answer there. </p> <p> Well, as far as who's contributing the code, I don't have a strong opinion on that. I think your first question of, like, what is the code that's, I think that was your question, right? </p> <p> What code is ready to be created, which kind of helps answer the first question. Like, so far. I'm not ready to be created. </p> <p> great. Something can not be ready to create, and people already have a felt need for it. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6362.97">@1:46:02</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> So there's a couple of needs that we've kind of inferred or referred to, and that's what I really want to kind of pull out. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6373.57">@1:46:13</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> What I'm hearing so far is for the member platform project itself, we probably have an organizer role that can be provided, and we have, if we take Steve's approach, we provide a CRM underscore membership relationship entity, which we expect the CRM membership module to kind of take over for lack of a better term, right? </p> <p> And we have the member directory member profile, which maybe is a sub module that depends on those two things that I just mentioned. </p> <p> Like I think that's the stuff that's like more or less ready to go. Like ready for somebody to sort of try. </p> <p> I get those are the pools we're playing in, but I want to splash the big one over there that we mentioned some timelines around a university or something, and I don't know who's involved with that or what the drivers are there, and obviously that's outside the recording conversation, but I feel like that's not the only thing that's going to be a driver here. </p> <p> I don't actually think that that is relevant to member platform moving forward with code. Okay. I think we should say member platform does not need to depend on CRM membership for 1.0. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6463.89">@1:47:43</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Maybe we will revise that decision if CRM membership, because, for example, there's this university that needs it, comes out with something that's usable and useful, right? </p> <p> But if we at least ensure... Their compatibility with that, with a convention, right, that says, hey, we know that that module is going to provide a CRM membership relationship entity. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6488.97">@1:48:08</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> We're going to go ahead and provide that out of the box, right, with member platform, and it will be compatible in the future, right? </p> <p> I hear what saying. It just feels like a little bit of hand-waving. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6506.57">@1:48:26</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yes, and how, you know. Stop it, Steve. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6513.03">@1:48:33</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So I don't know if this is helpful or not, but, like, if we say member directory and member profile functionality, right, depends on this role and it depends on this relationship entity, but it doesn't depend on any details around that relationship entity, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6532.55">@1:48:52</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I don't know how it could depend on it without depending on some details around it. So I get generally that we can expect that there's. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6540.01">@1:49:00</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> There's something there and we can work with something there, but if we have code that's executing, it's going to depend on something, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6546.43">@1:49:06</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> It will rely on a field somewhere or an entity somewhere. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6551.21">@1:49:11</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> It's not, it doesn't. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6553.49">@1:49:13</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I'm saying, obviously, we are depending on CRM, which has the representation of contacts and of relationships. Right. One non-dependency, that's great. </p> <p> Good. And we say, we say that the member directory, member profile depends on this relationship entity that we are also going to ship it with such that we don't need to depend on CRM membership for 1.0. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6583.29">@1:49:43</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So we're saying that however that entity is created, it doesn't sound like it's being created in CRM, but we're saying that essentially the method of creation is within the submodule that we've defined right now. </p> <p> And obviously that's something that's pulled out later, but right I think it's either in the sub-module or maybe it's in the member platform-based project. </p> <p> Other things might need to depend on that as well. And the member profile could be optional. Yeah, and where I would push is we all understand the ideal target state of, in essence, three different modules. </p> <p> We start with one module in one place, and we code it in such a way that these things can be pulled out easily enough. </p> <p> But we start with one module in one place and pull out the pieces later as things mature. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6638.5">@1:50:38</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Personally, I err on the side of if, like, err on the side of, okay, member directory, member profile as a concept is something that people might want to make optional, right? </p> <p> Like, I don't think a member platform site must use a member directory, member profile. In principle, I agree with you, but if we're saying that right now, this is the functionality that we're building, it's not optional anymore. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6668.43">@1:51:08</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Well, it's not useful to install the platform-based project if all you get is a relationship, entity, and a role, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6678.85">@1:51:18</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> But I think once we have that, we will more quickly find additional things that make sense there. Like, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not so worried. </p> <p> I guess I want to avoid us putting things in a place that we don't think is the eventual place for it and having work to, to buy it. </p> <p> I, I get your tidy-itis. I understand. I'm, I'm with you. I just, I don't know how quickly things are going to move, and so I'm, you know, there are advantages to things being in one bucket, and, you know, but, yeah, I get what you're saying. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6714.12">@1:51:54</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I, I don't like things that way either, but it's, uh, it, I could give a thousand examples of, of... </p> <p> Of just how it just works in the real world, you know, and I'm sure, you know, I don't need to give them to you. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6725.05">@1:52:05</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> So, I mean, honestly, I'm, I'm, I'm interested. Like I, I'm, I don't want to, you know, I, I have, I have my biases. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6737.81">@1:52:17</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> I don't, it comes, for me, it comes down to what are the drivers and like, like, you know this, but I don't know if you shared this with everyone else, but I've got functional parts of this stuff already. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6749.01">@1:52:29</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> And it already lives in a, in a site, right? It's not in multiple sites, actually, but, you know, it's, it's really not a matter of, for me, even writing the original code. </p> <p> It's a matter of pulling the code from the places where it already exists and making sure that it fits the case that we want to put out there in public for Contrib. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6768.15">@1:52:48</a> - <strong>steven.ayers</strong> </p> <p> It's not, you know, so I don't, but. So what you're saying is there's, there's more, it's more, it's more work for you to take what already exists privately and put it into. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6783.35">@1:53:03</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> It just gets more complex for me to say, okay, well, these, like, I don't know, good analogy. Maybe the next meeting, you could give us an overview of maybe not every detail, but, you know, the broad feature sets that you already have working. </p> <p> Yeah. I don't want to do that work, Steve. Yeah, I mean, you know. Well, you know, as compelling as that might be, yeah, I mean, I'm not asking you to do a lot of work. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6832.06">@1:53:52</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I'm looking for, you give us, like, top five to ten bullet points. Yeah, yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6837.9">@1:53:57</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6839.48">@1:53:59</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I. Um, what I'm trying to figure out and asking the questions that I'm asking is like, where's the threshold for, for me writing code? </p> <p> I mean, to be selfish. So, or I'm not writing code, but you know what mean? And, um, and I need something more material. </p> <p> Like I need a driver. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6860.27">@1:54:20</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I need to know, okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6862.11">@1:54:22</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Like, mean, the university case is a perfect one where, okay, I know what this use case is, what the, what the, what this constituency needs or wants and so on. </p> <p> and I can, I can fashion something around it under member profile member directory. So, um, I need something more, personally, I need something more concrete and I'll, I'll, if it's three modules or 10 modules, I'll sweep it together into whatever it is. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6883.37">@1:54:43</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> But, um, you know, that's really kind of, yeah, that's what I'm looking for. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6893.16">@1:54:53</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> So I think I, maybe what I'm hearing is the, the specific requirements for the member. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6900.01">@1:55:00</a> - <strong>Scott Wolpow</strong> </p> <p> directory member profile need refinement to get to a point where it's concrete enough to go build. Yes. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6908.87">@1:55:08</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> And the use case, for example, from the university would be a helpful way to get to that. Yeah. I mean, who are going to build it for first, I guess, is really the, if we were to boil it down. </p> <p> I mean, I'm happy to offer up, you know, my neighborhood association as sort of the guinea pig, you know, use case example and something that's sort of wholly under control. </p> <p> You know what I mean? If that's helpful to move things forward. And same for my kayak group. Okay. I need to drop. </p> <p> I've got to have another meeting. Thanks, Steve. All right. Most of them won't know if it's problem. It's almost Irish. </p> <p> Goodbye. I'm sorry, Scott. I was talking over you. As in a special material group, most of the people don't know if something's not working the way it's supposed to. </p> <p> Right. Fair enough. And so I'll put this in very limited context on the recording is that my use cases don't revolve around someone managing this through a web UI. </p> <p> So my use cases revolve around communication. And so because as I put it in other places, you've got to do the basics right first. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=6998.15">@1:56:38</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> And for me, in most cases, in most organizations I deal with or have dealt with, communication's the first part. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7005.45">@1:56:45</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> And that means, you know, things like email and distribution lists and texting and, you know, Slack channel messaging and so on. </p> <p> This is, and that's, so communication. That's the first part. And then as just for posterity, I'll throw in, and as a principle, I believe in privacy as a first order citizen. </p> <p> So I think that privacy is technically something that should be possible, maybe not opted for, but possible architecturally from day one. </p> <p> And so anyway, that's where I'm at. Would it be helpful to switch context, Adam, if you have more time and talk through more communication-specific things, like some of the email discussions that we've had in the past? </p> <p> We could, and I realize my use, my language use there was not as precise as it should have been. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7080.1">@1:58:00</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> The conversations we've had are really second-order email stuff. What I mean is more functional-based, like how is the group in this case. </p> <p> So we haven't defined, I don't think, anything beyond organizer. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7100.8">@1:58:20</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I unfortunately chose the word manager for organizer. I like the word organizer, but I had to choose a word, you know, however many years ago, and I chose manager. </p> <p> And so the, but I really like the semantics of organizer. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7117.72">@1:58:37</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Anyway, my point there is that how groups work with communication and email is the first step. And then the communication stuff we're talking about as far as what ties into Drupal for the messaging templates and so on is a second kind of step. </p> <p> Let's talk about the groups there. So. So you're, you're, you're representing multiple groups of people that need to be communicated to. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7148.85">@1:59:08</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yes. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7152.28">@1:59:12</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> And is that, does that representation rely on relationships or does it rely on say the group module? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7160.08">@1:59:20</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7160.9">@1:59:20</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Presently it's tied into both CRM and, and groups modules in a way that I, I, given my more recent understanding of those, uh, would not have done it that way. </p> <p> Well, maybe you would have, so I, I don't know details of what you're doing and this is just conjuring up past conversations with various people about that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7188.26">@1:59:48</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Um, so there was a discussion recently about having group membership with the group module, right? Not CRM. The map of a user in a group be derived from their relationships. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7208.26">@2:00:08</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Okay. So if somebody is a member of a museum, right, that when that relationship gets added, right, that could cause the person contacts mapped user to be added to a group, right, in the group module sense, that then has various group module functionality, like permissions within the group and things like that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7244.71">@2:00:44</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Does that sound like it maps kind of to what you're doing? Yeah, yeah. It does map to the area that I've kind of cycled on a little bit with the different pieces involved. </p> <p> Yeah. And I think it's an important area to iron out some nuance. The museum example was perhaps a bad one because maybe they just have one group, right? </p> <p> Right. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7271.23">@2:01:11</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> No, but I get, I, I, I abstracted it. It's okay. I, it's okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7274.65">@2:01:14</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I get, I get the, if we take my neighborhood association, right. Um, okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7279.49">@2:01:19</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> We, we might have a group for all of the members, but we might have a subgroup for the board and we might have a subgroup for, um, people who like to go running or, you know. </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7288.91">@2:01:28</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I, I avoided all that, but the whole hierarchical hierarchies get messy. So I avoided that in my, in my builds so far by, by just saying, nope, if you're, I don't care if you're a member of the museum, uh, as well, but your membership of the board is not dependent or related in any way, shape or form to your membership, to the museum itself. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7313.25">@2:01:53</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So I, I just, I made that hard and fast and have continued to, and probably will for some time. </p> <p> Because just like with the hierarchy of relationships we were talking about with parents and children and siblings, it gets really messy really fast. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7330.47">@2:02:10</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, no, I definitely hear what you're saying, and I almost regret mentioning subgroup. Sorry. No, no, no. I totally get that. </p> <p> What I'm thinking through is, like, let's say to be part of the Neighborhood Association running group, you have to be a member of the Neighborhood Right. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7349.21">@2:02:29</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> You can apply conditions and stuff. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7350.75">@2:02:30</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7351.53">@2:02:31</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> But that doesn't necessarily have to live in the group ecosystem's concept of subgroups. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7357.99">@2:02:37</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Fair. Yeah, fair. And perhaps it shouldn't. Yeah, I think that's a bigger conversation, but yeah. All right, guys, I'm to jump on to my next call. </p> <p> Okay, Scott. All right, bye-bye. See ya. So, Adam, in your mind, do you see decisions? Specific decisions that would be useful to attempt to propose, you know, a decision on. </p> <p> That was so political heavy. can't even, you know, that was just, oh my God, so beautiful. You're asking, oh, if I'm, you know, just... </p> <p> Blockers. Yeah. Okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7403.64">@2:03:23</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Or what would be useful stakes in the ground that maybe you would like to propose that, you know, meet your needs and possibly also have more general consequences? </p> <p> My needs are elsewhere right now, frankly. And so, you know, and it's not entirely elsewhere. It's completely related, but it's like, you know, I've got a huge freaking backlog and a meeting tomorrow that... </p> <p> I haven't even begun to pull the code together that I've absolutely got to get the polling done today. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7447.19">@2:04:07</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> So I want to do something here. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7452.31">@2:04:12</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> just... Yeah, you're otherwise engaged at the moment. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7458.65">@2:04:18</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Well, fair. Yeah. Yeah. So I think for the sake of... Because I've taken a pass point you've made. We need some code. </p> <p> <strong>ACTION ITEM: Create Member Platform module w/ Organizer role + 'crm_membership' relationship; then build directory/profile -<a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7475.9999"> WATCH</a></strong> </p> <p> We need to start having a little more progress, right? Like we've seen CRM has code. Now we've got issues to create and things to do and improvements. </p> <p> Yeah. So I'm tempted, based on the discussion today, to just say, hey, all right, let's get this CRM membership relationship entity and an organizer role. </p> <p> So... Go. you. Committed. Hey, look, member platform exists now. I'm with you there. I just think it's, I think those things live under the member platform module, and even if they get pulled other places. </p> <p> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good, good, good, good. I agree that those things belong there. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7513.46">@2:05:13</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Where we may diverge in agreement is the member directory and member profile piece. Yeah. And look, I mean, yeah, whatever. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7523.82">@2:05:23</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Like I said before, I'm ready to do anything there yet. Like, we're not quite there. Yeah. But we've identified these sort of... </p> <p> Here's another argument for the, you know, the smorgasbord bucket is that, you know, if I'm looking at a smorgasbord bucket where maybe I've started it or somebody else started it and I'm sweeping in stuff, I'm going be more tempted to sweep in some things that are like, okay, well, this is not really what we are doing or asked for, but this is useful. </p> <p> And maybe these, this extra little snippet would be something that'll kick off the right kind of conversations again. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7560.02">@2:06:00</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> And besides, there's this other conversation that somebody mentioned that this would be my tie-in to, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7565.12">@2:06:05</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> So those are the kinds of things where I'm thinking, like, one place to put things is incredibly useful. Is it because you see interdependencies? </p> <p> Like, is there something that's going to depend on member platform, member directory existing? Doesn't everything depend on everything, JD? </p> <p> Yeah, no, it's precisely because I see the complexity of what we're looking to do. And, you know, if you have one place where you don't have to decide yet that, okay, yeah, this is member. </p> <p> Like, I can't think of a specific case, but, like, if we don't have to decide yet that it belongs in the submodule, then that's a good thing because we can continue moving forward. </p> <p> And that's the blessing of simplicity right now. No, I hear that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7619.21">@2:06:59</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I would. I'm not overly dogmatic about it. Yeah, yeah, I get it. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7625.2">@2:07:05</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> There is a day, like I've posted lots of fun stories in the last couple months because I'm attempting to be more social. </p> <p> And there's case, there's stories out there that are fun. And my mind is attempting to just cycle in on one. </p> <p> And, but, you know, I've seen it time and time again where it's like, okay, yeah, we've got these, the business proposal covers these 10 areas and this is what we're going to do. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7657.12">@2:07:37</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> And great and wonderful when you spend all this time and then, you know, build things out. look, the three of those were just kind of nice to haves and you didn't build them and it's okay. </p> <p> the, you know what mean? So it's not, I'm not articulating this very well, but. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7675.12">@2:07:55</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> That's all right. I think I'm happy enough to say, all right, let's just stick stuff in. The member namespace and see where it leads. </p> <p> We're not at the point of having to worry about breaking changes. Exactly, yeah. Fair enough. The only things as far as breaking changes, I'd be more cautious about our data architecture decisions. </p> <p> So that's where the field lives on, this entity. Or it's an entity relationship. Those kinds of things are far more complex to move away from at a later point. </p> <p> So those are the things I'd be a little more cautious about. Yep, I agree. Are there other things that you feel like are at the point of maybe being almost ready to make it into that member platform project? </p> <p> Is there anything that you have in mind? I think Scott's felt need for somewhere I can click to do these things. </p> <p> At its simplest level, it's not a view, it's just the standard built-in, the water's failing me. What's that? Page? </p> <p> Like the, yeah, route, but not route, but there's a, what's the element for the page for, like, the container? </p> <p> Huh? Content type? No, no, not the builder side, the development side. Yeah, the, shoot. My brain's not working right now. </p> <p> I've been there. Anyway, the, the, when you build a page that's, it's not called a page, it's something else. </p> <p> Anyway, the, um. Node? Yeah, not, yes, but no. It's like, in the code, there's another name for it. Anyway, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. </p> <p> You get the idea of what I'm saying. The, the, when you build a node in a, in a module that has, uh, the ability to switch those. </p> <p> Yeah, that's the direction. Yeah, yeah, that's the direction. Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7800.33">@2:10:00</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So, yeah, and the whole, that's the kind of MVC direction, but yeah, that's more conceptually where I'm going. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7808.03">@2:10:08</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> The, you know, that first place where the configuration lives, I think is at its simplest build is, you know, it's two pieces. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7823.55">@2:10:23</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> It's the settings for the module itself, and it's a list of members because utility-wise, those are the two basic things that you need for this to, even if those break out into 17 other things. </p> <p> So those are the things that are simplest, and we can kind of sweep together everything there in that little pile and say, okay, we've got this view controller or whatever thing that lists the users, and we've got this page that has the basic settings for whatever. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7860.02">@2:11:00</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I think a list of members, that makes sense. A list of members clearly is something we can kind of proceed with proposing something in that vein, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7867.32">@2:11:07</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. I'm not sure what settings we have yet. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7870.98">@2:11:10</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> They're going to be there. mean, even if it's just, okay, yes, successfully connected to CRM module or whatever, you know, you've got use cases where they're... </p> <p> <strong>ACTION ITEM: Create issue queue tasks from Member Profile/Directory doc + meeting notes -<a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7889.9999"> WATCH</a></strong> </p> <p> that's what you're saying. Yeah. All righty. Well, good discussion. Thank you, Adam. All those good thoughts come out of your mouth. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7895.64">@2:11:35</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Well, that's good to hear. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7900.23">@2:11:40</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> So let's, yeah, let's see where... I think I'm wondering about moving some of this stuff into the issue queue. </p> <p> Yeah. Right? having distinct tasks that can go and be done. I think that's a good idea. Maybe somebody will pick them up or maybe I'll end up doing something. </p> <p> Yeah. Right. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7922.25">@2:12:02</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah, I made my first contrib to Drupal module in X number of years. Oh, nice. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7929.03">@2:12:09</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> What was it? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7932.41">@2:12:12</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Good question. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7933.91">@2:12:13</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> There was something... Oh, it was Shirley. Do you know Shirley, the URL module? yeah. Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7940.29">@2:12:20</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Something with underlying PHP version stuff that I know other people out there have experienced. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=7947.37">@2:12:27</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I just haven't been at any sort of a con or anything to say, yeah, I'll fix that. And so I finally got around... </p> <p> What's that? Supporting a new version of PHP or something? Exactly, yeah. I think it was 8.4, 8.5. And yeah, so I fixed it ages ago. </p> <p> And then I had a more recent update that I was like, you know, I've got this all ready to go. </p> <p> Let me just be a good citizen. And so I took half an hour and did that the other day. </p> <p> Do you think that this overview document, do you think it's useful to chop it up and stick it into issues? </p> <p> The one we're looking at right now? Yeah. I think, hmm, probably. of those issues need work, right? They need definition, right? </p> <p> For the detailed and architectural decisions. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8008.22">@2:13:28</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> That's where my project manager side, where your rightful and more retentive side comes into play, where I'm like, well, if I were to do that, I'm just going to think out loud for a second because, you know, the AI doesn't care. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8020.46">@2:13:40</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> And, yeah, I think, you know, I'm, you know, just, yeah, I would tend to try to, I bite off more than I can chew. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8029.89">@2:13:49</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> So I would, yeah, yeah, the answer is yes. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8036.17">@2:13:56</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> The question is how? And so there's... Two things that are the big thoughts around that one how has to do with, you know, starting with the big picture and slicing out those pieces and doing that. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8048.92">@2:14:08</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> And the other comes from the other side of, well, we just had an hour-to-hour conversation that AI is going to help us with the notes on. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8055.88">@2:14:15</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> And there's probably a lot of good stuff in there that would be rather readily moved into issues, too. So those are the two big thoughts. </p> <p> And I had a lot more mess in my brain, but that's... I guess put another way, do you feel like this document should be revised in situ versus... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8083.9">@2:14:43</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I'm sorry, switched tabs and it did an artifact on me. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8087.72">@2:14:47</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> What's the second verse? Or should it be done in the issue queue? This document should... Yeah, I think in place right now... </p> <p> Yeah, I think in place... I now is in situ, your Latin. I think in place right now is, what's that? </p> <p> My Latin is very limited. Do you mind if I go off on a 15 second, 20 second tangent? No, please do. </p> <p> One of my core things is actually a Latin phrase. I might have mentioned this before, but to understand how deeply embedded it is in my being, it would be hard for you to probably understand. </p> <p> So Meliora, better. And I'm sorry, call coming in one second. Oh, nevermind. Spam. It just didn't tell me until I picked it up. </p> <p> It showed us a phone number. And then I was like, wait, I know somebody in that state, which is pretty easy to do. </p> <p> And then I was like, okay. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8149.34">@2:15:49</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> But yeah, Meliora, always better. So it goes back to, I mean, it goes back 30 years for me and not to give away too, too, too. </p> <p> Too closely how old I am. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8161.52">@2:16:01</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> But when I was in college, it was a phrase on one of those little placards at University of Rochester. </p> <p> And I went to ROTC at the University of Rochester and attended RIT. And I saw it and I was like, huh, I wonder what that means. </p> <p> And I looked it up and I was like, wait a second, I love that. It fits with how I already operate, what I already believe. </p> <p> And so I was like, that's a good label. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8189.02">@2:16:29</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> And one of things I've said before, I don't know if I've said with you, is when we start to put words to things, it's just like metrics, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8198.44">@2:16:38</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> When we start to put words to things, when we can actually start to improve them. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8205.24">@2:16:45</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Anyway, so yeah. Meliora. Let me ask another question. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8211.96">@2:16:51</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> So this, if in situ, right, this overview document is not currently in our shared drive where we have a bunch of </p> <p> People who would have access to edit it. Is that something that you'd be interested in moving there, or is this too specific to your work? </p> <p> Well, I drafted this for us, so if you want to pull it out there, the only thing I would do is, does that pulling it over there mean, what does that mean exactly? </p> <p> Does that mean, like, linking it, or does that mean, because isn't that a Google Docs folder as well, or not? </p> <p> Is it? I'm sorry, I used the wrong terminology. It is in a Google Drive folder, or most of our documents, right, are in a Google Drive folder. </p> <p> Yeah, that's what I thought, and that's so, do you want to copy it over there, or would I copy it? </p> <p> What do you mean by that? Copy or move, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8266.36">@2:17:46</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> App's no reason to not move it. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8269.34">@2:17:49</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I would say move it just because if people have the link, it'll continue to function. Yeah, yeah. The only thing I would do before getting that visibility is I want to remove, and I'm going to do that right now. </p> <p> I'm going to move Move this link and kind of, kind of, um, ambiguify it a little bit. Um, all right. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8292.06">@2:18:12</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> And then I don't know what the right way to do that is, but, um, actually, sorry, I'm just doing it on the fly right now. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8305.78">@2:18:25</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> So, um, just for me to be able to not lose my entire brain when I'm looking for things. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8315.66">@2:18:35</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Um, yeah, the ambiguify doesn't really work if I have the whole thing there. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8326.13">@2:18:46</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> So let me make that not as important. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8346.36">@2:19:06</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> There. How's that? Sure. That way I can still find it. It's just not a simple click for me. Yeah, yeah. </p> <p> And there's nothing else in here that's referring to anything personal, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8360.68">@2:19:20</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I mean, really? mean, there's the project letters that are... I don't care. Yeah, that's fine. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8366.52">@2:19:26</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I don't mind. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8367.32">@2:19:27</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> In fact, I would like if those align, honestly. The ABC, Project A, Project C, that stuff. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8374.46">@2:19:34</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I don't see why they can't. I don't have any existing nomenclature. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8379.72">@2:19:39</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8380.86">@2:19:40</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> But that's actually a perfect example of how just things get fleshed out. Like, I didn't know how many I had, and I didn't know how they were going to be grouped, and I moved them around, and it was, you know... </p> <p> So I started with just, okay, this is A. And then I pulled it out of A and put it in C and whatever else, right? </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8398.4">@2:19:58</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I think there's a possibility... </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8400.02">@2:20:00</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> The scope ends up differing, and that could be confusing for you if, you know, let's say project D, yes, plus one registration, you know, remember platforms needs to cover, like, let's say just an event registration in general or something. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8418.7">@2:20:18</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> That's fine. I mean, even if it covers something else in addition to what's here. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8423.98">@2:20:23</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. That's absolutely fine. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8426.02">@2:20:26</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. Because the reality is that the projects that I've, as I've built them, have not strictly stayed to these lines anyway. </p> <p> Sure. So is your preference copying the document or moving it? Moving is fine. I'm okay with that. That would have to be something you do. </p> <p> Oh, is it? Okay. Only because you're the owner of the document, I think. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8447.54">@2:20:47</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Yeah. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8448.24">@2:20:48</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I assume that the Google account owner is the same one that has access to the member platform. It is, yeah. </p> <p> I have a member platform folder here in blue. I don't know if that's my choice or. But I'm going to move it there now. </p> <p> It's got to be yours. That's something I would do is to call it totally. Definitely. I didn't even know you could color folders. </p> <p> Now I'm looking at the future. I'm like, that's cool. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8476.82">@2:21:16</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> Oh, my goodness. They've had that for years. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8478.52">@2:21:18</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> They had coloring folders before they had really robust tagging or labels. Oh, interesting. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8483.86">@2:21:23</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> I've never used folder colors, nor have I ever encountered them. That's right. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8490.02">@2:21:30</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> Okay, so, yeah, I can't remove items from member platform, but that's okay. I'm going to move it anyway. And done. </p> <p> I am going to archive a copy just because that's what I do. Sure. Done. All right. Good to go. </p> <p> Do you see it there? You're good? I do. Yep. Yep. Looking good. Cool. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8543.46">@2:22:23</a> - <strong>JD Leonard</strong> </p> <p> All right. </p> <p> <a href="https://fathom.video/share/u7k8cJjAiXeEwxLw-pxbseQamS34r9hh?timestamp=8544.16">@2:22:24</a> - <strong>Adam John</strong> </p> <p> I haven't put any food in my body yet, so I should probably go do that. Yeah, I've got mine sitting on the counter over there, and I honestly had a fire to put out before this, before the, you know, came up, of course, as usual, just before the 11 o'clock. </p> <p> And it was enough of one that it displaced my brain, absolutely anything else. And I came into the house, I came into the house and thought two things. </p> <p> I thought, I'm starving, and I grabbed food. And the other thing I thought at the same time was my son is upstairs because he's resting from home. </p> <p> And my son is upstairs and I should probably go wake him because it's, you know, whatever time it was, almost noon. </p> <p> And I was like, yeah. And then I was like, and then I sat down the food and I was like, wait a second. </p> <p> Oh, shoot. I had something to go to. What time is it? All right. We'll talk soon. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. </p> <p> All right. Be well. </p>