Release 1.2.0 Checkpoint Consensus
The City and Provider Working Group Steering Committees met for the Consensus Checkpoint for the 1.2.0 proposed release, and presented these results at a Working Group meeting.
The Checkpoint lets them decide what is ready for the release, what features should be left out and how, if extra time is needed to finish features, and confirm a targeted release candidate date.
For this work, we used our rubric to help guide the evaluation, looking at feature utility, stakeholder adoption, implementation simplicity, direction consensus, and work completed as part of the evaluation criteria.
The outcomes and actions from these discussions are summarized here:
#608 - New endpoint in Policy for agencies to describe program requirements digitally to allow operators and the public to see what MDS and GBFS versions, APIs, endpoints, and fields are required.
Good utility, consensus, and work done on this, and good commitment from some agencies, third parties, and providers. Stable proposal and support from community, solving multiple issues.
Actions: Mark as Beta, since it will be an evolving new feature. Need final refining (like discussion on disallowed fields) and supporting wiki documentation, and new repo for optionally hosting agency files.
#589, #616, PR #653. Bring richer geo location data options into trips and status changes.
Good across the board, simple, optional solution.
Actions: PR mostly done and agreed on. Question about vertical accuracy. New fields are optional, not all providers have the data
Multiple additions to Policy that could support more digitization of city permit policy requirements
This release:
- #633 Rate options for more rule types - need PR
- #631 Support parking fees by duration - has PR #658 with examples, needs review and more eyes on it
Deferred to future release: Most need a larger discussion around connections to new or existing Metrics, and the role of Policy (eg for enforcement and not just communication):
- #618 Vehicle distribution by % - examples/tweak or Metrics-based rule? Need PR. Look back period, time of day. Added some real world examples to allow discussion.
- #619 Clarify min distribution - need PR with specific examples, maybe Metrics connection
- #621 Better support for fee schedules
- #620 Support utilization policies - Align to Metrics - need PR - Strat Comm, discussion. OMF could do a survey and get common calcs to point to. Need a way to allow auditability.
Actions: Review each issue and leave comments and create PRs as needed in next 2-3 weeks.
#614 Add multi-modal support to Policy
May need to wait for larger mode discussion, but an optional temporary solution could be put in place.
Actions: Attempt a proposal, if not or no agreement in 1-3 week, move to next release. Ensure sync with GBFS.
Good feedback from users across all org types, ready to move out of beta.
Actions: Issue #637, and need to create a small clarifying PR for jurisdiction and ROW language.
#652 discussion about the architecture of new modes in MDS
Complex issue of the best way to architect adding new modes into MDS. Member Network discussion synthesis needed. Not sure what solution is yet. Affects 3 new modes proposed so far:
- #521 self-driving scooters (to a rider), delivery bots modes
- #640 supporting car sharing mode in MDS
- #95 TNC, Taxi, ride hail support in MDS
Actions: Create doc that outlines process and architecture for new modes in MDS. Created 3 Member Networks for the discussions needed, decide on a solution, and find stakeholders to commit to each new mode.
#613 how to send crash data to agencies
Cities do want this now and request it, but people self report, so data is minimal. Not sure what would work to solve this based on what tech and data providers have. Accelerometer data may just confuse the issue. What city would use sensor data in a meaningful way and rely on it? Operators say it’s not possible to have any reliable data on crashes.
Actions: Continue to get ideas on how this could be added to MDS, maybe historically, as tech and process improves.
Not enough usage since 1.0.0 to move it out of beta. Will revisit next release.
Actions: Issue #638 can continue to be used to ask companies which cities/providers are using stops, see what feedback they all have.
- Finish all work mid August
- Release candidate slated for end of August
- Approval phase after that for 1 month or so
- Release approved end of September or early October
See release plan for details.
- Quicker release with a focus on Mode support. Not sure if major or minor, but may be major 2.0.0 because of potential fundamental changes in how multiple modes will work.
