Follow up meeting with a client. Here are some of my notes:

- The current custom page that exists, they will leave it somewhat hidden and not connected. That way only certain people have access to the page.

- They would eventually like it to be fully automated and even hidden if possible. This deals with mapping custom sub attributes to certain phases and processes. Fully custom, just for this client. the automation deals with passing phase dates to sub attribute dates - this would require a small mapping to keep apples to apples.

- MVP solution (minimal viable product) - keep it small and tight. This is just for one client, we don't want to make this standard.

- Steve was pitching some other settings and status values for settings. Instead of just having active or inactive settings (use or don't use). He was proposing view only or admin only settings. Basically, pulling in a level of permissions on the settings themselves. That's nothing new, but sometimes as you build, you don't realize that you have to protect and/or figure out the levels when you first build it. Often, the idea is build it and then forget it. However, if the users have to keep going to the settings, you run the risk of someone who shouldn't be changing global or master settings and they switch something which causes problems. Basically, permissions and status levels within the settings. Interesting how everything eventually breaks into sub levels of control. Think of sub permissions.

- We did some light planning on the next phase of the automation process.

- There were some small look and feel requests. Once everything looks and feels good, they (our clients) are comfortable. If anything is off, even small ish, there is a small tension level. Very interesting.