Release 2.0.0 Checkpoint Midway

The MDS Working Group Steering Committee met for the Midway Checkpoint for the 2.0.0 proposed release, and will present these results at a the next Working Group meeting. This completes the work we started back in Oct 2021.

The checkpoint lets them review feature proposals, align current work to goals, and ensure the release features and work is on track.

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.

See the Release Plan for details of these features. The outcomes and actions from these discussions are summarized here:

Modes Architecture and 3 Modes Overall

Good work done on overall modes work and structure

Utility: 3-5 How common and how high of priority is this for cities?
Adoption: 4-5 List of cities who are formally committing to this work. Good to know on release. Adoption cohort.
Simplicity: 3-4 Complex to implement, but unavoidable. Did best to compartmentalize it
Consensus: 4-5
Work: 3-4 Journey ID questions, clarity on use and need when implementing. Some work on structure and final pass

Mode: Passenger Services

Great draft with suggestions for edits from SFMTA

Utility: 5
Adoption: 3-5 Need formal commitment. About 10 very active cities contributing use cases and data requirements
Simplicity: 3-4 First time to implement a mode, so can be hard.
Consensus: 4-5
Work: 4

Mode: Delivery Robots

First draft merged to dev and good feedback

Utility: 3-5
Adoption: 3-4 Good kiwibot participation, need more operators, not sure of pervasiveness of bots in cities minor share of mobility in cities
Simplicity: 4
Consensus: 4-5 not broad work yet, but specific ideas
Work: 4

Mode: Carshare

Good baseline info, needs pull request, more straightforward than other modes

Utility: 3 some demand, may improve operations now, needed in EU, US may think of it more like car rental
Adoption: 3
Simplicity: 4
Consensus: 3-4
Work: 3 need PR from OMF staff and review by WG

Policy Reimagining

Good work, needs more thought and feedback, lots of open ancillary issues

Utility: 5 PROW definitions are useful
Adoption: 4-5 based on who is using Policy, may be hard to migrate
Simplicity: 4-5
Consensus: 3-4 Inverse cases and discussions are needed. Some good consensus around key discussions
Work: 3-4 Need PR for unknown states, open issues on GitHub