August 9th 2016

Attendance Information

8:15AM PST - Seattle

11:15AM EST - New York, DC

5:15PM CEST - CEST, Geneva, Copenhagen, Joburg

6:15PM EAT - Dar


Webex Linkhttps://meetings.webex.com/collabs/#/meetings/detail?uuid=M299H1X42RL8F1ABXL3LOKN9TN-3O29&rnd=484955.51579

Meeting Number192 173 465

Host Key352864

Audio Connection +1-415-655-0001 


AGENDA

ItemTimePresenter

Discussion the risks identified by committee members

  • 2. Are we building the right product for our target environment?
  • 11. Too many new country requests / distractions / demands of project teams (scope creep)
  • 3. Solution too complex for end users
  • 1. New deployments that are needed before 3.0 is done
  • 7. OpenLMIS community stays dependent on centralized funding from 1-2 primary sources and fails to diversify and encompass open source development principles
  • 6. OpenLMIS community fails to grow. Stays small and driven by self-interest
  • 5. Perception of code review as an acceptance of the story. The role of code review.
  • New risk identified by Lakshmi: Countries do not migrate to 3.0.
  • Any other risks?
30 min

Follow up: present the new feature verification process diagram

5 min
Update on the roadmap and work coming up next5 min

Potential Items for discussion

  • Request for User Personas used across deployments
  

ACTION ITEMS

  • Product Committee members to share the user personas they used for deployments.
  • Product committee members to share thoughts on risks on an ongoing basis.

Next week we will discuss:

  • Remaining Risks
  • Review status of the roadmap
  • Discussion around what, who, when, why (possibly) we'd want audit logging to cover
    • Are there any standards in the industry? Did any of the deployments have specific requirements?
    • What activities should be covered? What basic elements do we want the log to contain?
  • Discuss offline error handling for requisitions offline (here)
  • What formats should be available for exporting file types

Attendance

 


 NOTES:

 

Discussion the risks identified by committee members

Risk #2. Are we building the right product for our target environment?

  • What do we do about it if we build the right product? If we go to a country, and it doesn't meet the needs.  We course correct. Hopefully we the right architecture in place to support extension.
  • We want to find the common feature set for OpenLMIS

Risk #11. Too many new country requests / distractions / demands of project teams (scope creep)

  • Chris George (Unlicensed) noted this is important for the committee to set expectations
  • Current strategies will need to be monitored over time and adjusted as needed

Risk #3. Solution too complex for end users

Other risks will be addressed on an on needed basis. slot time for each call.

  • Risk #1. New deployments that are needed before 3.0 is done

  • Risk #7. OpenLMIS community stays dependent on centralized funding from 1-2 primary sources and fails to diversify and encompass open source development principles
  • Risk #6. OpenLMIS community fails to grow. Stays small and driven by self-interest
  • Risk #5. Perception of code review as an acceptance of the story. The role of code review.
  • New risk identified by Lakshmi: Countries do not migrate to 3.0.

Follow up: present the new feature verification process diagram

Update on the roadmap and work coming up next

  • SolDevelo is in town
  • Showcase this week, Sprint 5.  We plan to have two basic services running (auth and requisitions)
  • Next sprint will focus on role based access, requisitions, converting reqs to orders, polish up the testing strategy, and start on the UI

 


RECORDING

OpenLMIS Product Committee-20160809 1500-1.arf

(To listen, you'll need to use the WebEx player)


ADDITIONAL READING:


 


 

OpenLMIS: the global initiative for powerful LMIS software