Attendance Information
5/31/2016
8:15AM PST - Seattle
11:15AM EST - New York, DC
5:15PM CEST - CEST, Geneva, Copenhagen, Joburg
6:15PM EAT - Dar
Meeting Number: 192 173 465
Host Key: 352864
Audio Connection: +1-415-655-0001
AGENDA
| Item | Time | Presenter |
|---|---|---|
| Guidance note & website refresh update | 5 minutes | |
Next steps on maturing our process for vetting project proposals (see memo & graphic)
The product committee recognizes that a clear process for vetting project proposals needs to be defined. To this end, we have recently introduced a process to review new project proposals for global requirements, to investigate cross-country demand for features, and to inform what features belong in the core OpenLMIS product. Consider a 1-2 day in-person to make bylaws concrete if possible | 30 minutes | |
| Feedback on Committee Survey | 10 minutes | |
| AOB | 15 minutes |
ACTION ITEMS
MINUTES
In attendance: Kevin Cussen (Deactivated), Gaurav Bhattacharya (Unlicensed), Chris George (Unlicensed), Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed), Danni Yu (Unlicensed), Brian Taliesin
Kevin Cussen (Deactivated) gave a brief review of where we were last time.
Chris George (Unlicensed): Suggest using the mailing list, jump on a call if needed. 2 weeks delay may be a bit long. The partner or PC member closest to the project should send an email to the list for discussion.
Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed): Is it on the roadmap? For technical assistance involve the tech committee.
Kevin Cussen (Deactivated): What if it isn't on the roadmap and the partner is building it without additional help?
Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed): If we think it's a good feature. Can assist with a developer.
Kevin Cussen (Deactivated): Should we augment their team?
Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed): May not be practical for the particular project.
Kevin Cussen (Deactivated): Strong feelings about adding personelle to a project at some low level of effort or are we just gatekeepers?
Chris George (Unlicensed): I think we're the gatekeepers.
Gaurav Bhattacharya (Unlicensed): We don't know how these situations will play out. We shouldn't make promises but should keep the door open for really important features depending on what resources the partner has.
Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed): Agreed with Chris and Gaurav.
Brian Taliesin: No objections.
Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed): In time we should have guidelines and quality guidelines. If we say we're not going to include it in core, we should have a checklist saying why. Important that it isn't arbritary.
Kevin Cussen (Deactivated): Technical or product guidelines?
Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed): Both, for contributing code and ideas.
Kevin Cussen (Deactivated): There is some tech framework in place for that checklist. How do we do this as a product committee though? HOw do we vet things are not on the product roadmap? What does that checklist look like for adding something to the roadmap when a new partner brings it?
Gaurav Bhattacharya (Unlicensed):
Brian Taliesin: Rotating point person that is up for reviewing incoming pieces? Assigned at each meeting. Initial triage of a feature, decide 1. add to backlog 2. deny 3. discuss.
Gaurav Bhattacharya (Unlicensed): Makes sense to me. We should document on the next call why a feature was added to the backlog or not.
Brian Taliesin: That point person should schedule a quick call with the vendor. Discuss what that new request looks like. Write up a quick email with reasons to believe / reasons to doubt, either discuss on an upcoming call or defer.
Gaurav Bhattacharya (Unlicensed): At what point should the PC coordinate with the TC?
Kevin Cussen (Deactivated): Described how Rich described. knowledge at high level reqs, see the low level reqs.
Chris George (Unlicensed): Mix the PC and TC once a month? Rather than a point person, maybe VR should coordinate for now because they are in the same room.
Gaurav Bhattacharya (Unlicensed): Is the community manager the coordinator of this? A feature coming in will require a bit of backround. What countries are interested in the feature? Is anyone else building the feature elsewhere?
Kevin Cussen (Deactivated): Try this out:
Chris George (Unlicensed): As a soon to be point person, how do I find out about projects?
Kevin Cussen (Deactivated): Does the rotating point person make sense if one of us is working on the project?
Brian Taliesin: For something we're doing "in house", no point person. For external, the point person is chosen each 1 month.
Gaurav Bhattacharya (Unlicensed): Rotate by volume, once soemone has gotten an item, then it passes.
What are the expectations for researching globalness, re-aligning roadmap for a new feature that is being built?
How are decisions made?
How often does that individual (or the entire PC) check in on a project?
How do we verify features?
RECORDING
ADDITIONAL READING