General Issue: Clarify extension package strategy

[bms63]

Background Information

After reviewing admiralvaccines code and documentation there was a lot of discussion around the following:

• Vaccines created functions that already existed in admiral
• Vaccines created functions that look promising for other TAs and should be brought into admiral-core

A similar issue occurred in admiralonco and admiralophtha where either the functions were generalized to be TA-agnostic and brought into admiral-core or it was noted that existing functions already existed.

This means that our extension packages are becoming more of repository for templates and vignettes and there are fewer and fewer functions available for the end user.

As this does not fit our original vision of the the extension packages, we should re-visit this strategy, expectations and support model.

Definition of Done

• Development Docs updated with section on Extension Package Strategy (unsure if this warrants a new vignette or just a section in an existing document
• Expectations of creating the extension package
  • What has happened in the past with vaccines, onco, opthta.
  • Encouragement of understanding core admiral functions
  • Encouragement of understanding core dev docs
• Support Model for creating the extension package
  • Monthly or every other month where core team reviews extension package
  • Tech Lead versus Product Owner Model and Expectations
  • Establish ways of working and make sure TL and PO understand this model
• Link Dev Doc in admiraltemplate
  • Review README,md in admiraltemplate and makes sure it aligns to current strategy.

[bms63]

Hi @pharmaverse/admiral I have put in the issue from my notes from today's retrospective on extension package strategy. I think this would largely be driven by TL/POs of core and extension packages, but I think I have captured most of our discussion.

Let me know if anything is missed in the above.