Monthly OpenLMIS Governance Committee Call. This meeting includes members of the governance committee, as well as anyone else interested in participating.
SolDevelo have been functioning as trusted partners for some time but have never officially been invited to governance
Proposal to be grandfathered in as a TP and member of the governance committee: all feedback is positive, no dissent
JSI: approve
VR: approve
PATH: approve
Ona: approve
Kaleb: approve
PSM: approve
Continued Discussion: Should SolDevelo sign a letter to comply with principles of TPs? We could do that for every organization; make everyone officially sign up to adhere principles
As agreed in the last meeting, Observer status of the Governance Committee was extended and accepted by Softworks
New Trusted Partner logo created- draft guidance on logo usage and the logo files have been added to Trusted Partner document. Anyone willing/able to review this language so we can vote on it as a group?
Trademarking is likely necessary; raises questions over who would own the trademark. This is going to take some time to pursue; should we start to investigate options? or delay. Lets decide this as a group. If pursue, we can present options at the next governance call
Next steps: pursue phase 1 contracting with Resonance; still some concerns re; their short timeline. Could build in a milestone into the contract, post phase 1, which would require a review.
mid-late Q2 would be desired timeline.
Brittney at BMGF will reach out to Resonance to get the contracting process started. Goal is to have something in place by end of September, for an October start date.
How to proceed for remaining priorities (do we really need this level of detail on Governance or should we move to product?)
Using actual data for demo, performance, and reporting
We are constantly constrained by our inability to obtain large data sets from our current implementations. We would like to update the governance of this challenge and risk to current work.
Challenge is that we don't have access to robust set of actual data. We have tried to obtain VIMS (obtained approval) but couldn't get the data. How do we address this risk?
Current implementations-updates on what stage they are at/activities
Cameroon (CHAI implementer, Satish)- the country team in Cameroon presented the CHAI-VR OpenLMIS concept note to GAVI late last week. We are yet to hear back from them. I will keep you posted as soon as I have any updates from the country team. As of now, the concept note only has a high level approach and solution sans the budget. Once GAVI responds positively, we will work on building a more comprehensive proposal.
Implementation opportunity: an opportunity for an implementation or deployment of the OpenLMIS software. Usually this is done at a national or sub-national level within a ministry of health. This can also include feature work which would be done within the implementation and contributed back to the global codebase.
Community opportunity: a funding opportunity to support an organization or individual to work directly on the global codebase and/or administrate the community processes. This may include funding specific features on the community roadmap.
This Trello tableis being updated on an ongoing basis; to help the core team to track and manage implementation opportunities, but also provides a detailed snapshot of the scope and status of current implementation opportunities for stakeholders.
Moving Forum Discussion from Google Groups to Discourse
Update: after weighing the potential costs and benefits of shifting community conversations to Discourse, the community stewards decided that this is a 'value-add' and want to move forward with it
Any questions or reservations from the group on this?
Highlighting the current gaps:
Google Groups:
Does not fill the gap between real time communication (Slack) and email.
Ends up being another funnel into our inboxes
Lacks advanced forum features like categories, user/community management, user individualization/progression, etc
Proposal for Discourse (based on feedback from Craig):
Discourse would be the main entry point into the OpenLMIS community for new members
The system should require an account but one that can be freely made by the user. User categorization can be used to denote users with more experience within the community (seeOpenMRS Developer Stages)
I think that Discourse would incorporate:
Google Groups discussions
Public project-related email
Some of what currently goes into Slack
Some the discussions currently occurring within the wiki
Conflict of Interest
(September agenda is packed, so we will cover this in our October meeting)
Mary Jo
Cite examples from recent Cote d'Ivoire opportunity:
What do we do when a Trusted Partner decides not to support the OpenLMIS v3? Or how does OpenLMIS decide When to not propose OpenLMIS when there is a system in country or a local entity is proposing a custom solution?