Attendance Information
8:15AM PST - Seattle
11:15AM EST - New York, DC
5:15PM CEST - CEST, Geneva, Copenhagen, Joburg
6:15PM EAT - Dar
Webex Link: https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/#/meetings/detail?uuid=M299H1X42RL8F1ABXL3LOKN9TN-3O29&rnd=484955.51579
Meeting Number: 192 173 465
Host Key: 352864
Audio Connection: +1-415-655-0001
AGENDA
Item | Time | Presenter |
---|
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 next | 5 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.
|
|
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: