March 21, 2017

7AM PST - Seattle

10AM EST - New York, DC

4PM CEST - CEST, Geneva, Copenhagen*

5PM EAT - Dar*

*Please note the updated meeting time in CEST and EAT timezones due to time change in the U.S. 

Monthly OpenLMIS Governance Committee Call. This meeting includes members of the governance committee, as well as anyone else interested in participating. 

Call Details:
WebEx Link:
Meeting Number: 191 186 622
US Audio: WebEx Online or +1-415-655-0001
International Audio: WebEx Online

Key Takeaways

  • Topics to be discussed on Governance forum
    • What is the OpenLMIS policy of integrating other systems (DHIS2, OpenHIE, etc.) into the larger OpenLMIS ecosystem?
    • Veto power and voting in the Governance Charter 
    • How do we decide feature prioritization for future releases? 
    • When do we decide that a country-specific feature or request is useful for the global core product and how do we go about prioritizing that with the other efforts that are in place? 
      Do we try to seek funding for that work? 
  • Open Question: Community considerations around interoperability, opportunities, etc. are getting larger - perhaps too large to discuss all points during a single Governance call. What is the best option for splitting off these conversations? 
    • Opportunities wiki section and nimble, ad-hoc calls? 
    • Integrations/Interoperability Google Group? 

Action Items





Chat Captures

Action Items from February 21

Community updates




Tenly Snow (Deactivated)

Carl Leitner - Need an established data model for DHIS2 Tracker. Doesn't have any data models. Need module or app in DHIS2 with fixed data model to support OpenLMIS integration.

Karl Brown (Unlicensed) - What's the first use case where we can try this? What is the first country implementing on 3.0? Makes sense from a user perspective to have a single application for entering information.

Nepal RFI - could be an opportunity
Depends on the next country for implementation

Gaurav Bhattacharya Look at this from the perspective of whatever is the OpenLMIS policy of integrating other systems into the larger OpenLMIS ecosystem?

  • Add as forum discussion/on next call

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated) Standards to keep in mind - The way people use DHIS2 might not match up with our data structures. One module for all DHIS2 connections might be tricky given the way that different countries implement DHIS2. DHIS2 Tracker was brought into play in Zambia.

Wendy Bommett - Zambia M&E Unit from MOH that uses the data - can't speak to exactly how the tracker is being used. When new systems are coming into place, good to show that OpenLMIS has APIs to connect to existing tools and build acceptance in a country. Ecosystem, open source suite for the whole supply chain in a country: EMR, DHIS2, other LMIS systems


Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed) How can we take advantage of the community resources - who has on the ground presence/context in the country, ways they can contribute

No existing SOP or business model within the community for when opportunities arise to see how the community can assist

For example - If a country hasn't decided on funding mechanism or project implementation mechanism, the community can assist to draft RFP, provide STTA, etc.

Carl Leitner Any documentation available on what services vendors could offer? Past experiences, what assistance they could provide, the role they could play.

Proposals - skill metrics, what type of skills and language proficiency

  • Ashraf provide some illustrative documents for capturing vendor capabilities

From Kaleb to Everyone(07:16:06 AM) 

Is this part of the OpenHIE discussion. I assume DHIS2 is also working with OpenHIE? 

From Mary Jo to Everyone(07:23:33 AM) 

Kaleb, I believe DHIS2 is a part of OpenHIE discussion as well. A good point but there may be some use cases desired for a direct connection. I think a real use case would help us deduce if OpenHIE would facilitate the interoperability or if there is really a need for a direct connection too. 

From scott to Everyone(07:23:55 AM) 

Hi Kaleb, to your question - yes the HISP team from Oslo is one of the leads for the HMIS community in OpenHIE. 

From Carl to Everyone(07:26:39 AM) 

The OpenHIE way to send data to an HMIS such as DHIS2 is to use the ADX standard.  It is going through an update at the moment. 

From Carl to Everyone(07:27:53 AM) 

For syncing facilities metadata between systems, the CSD standard is the OpenHIE identified standard.  It is also being update to be based on HL7 FHIR with mCSD. 

From Carl to Everyone(07:44:12 AM) 

the other thing that you will likely need for OpenLMIS integration w/ DHIS2 in the OpenHIE framework is a Terminology Service to map internal codes for OpenLMIS indicators to the codes used by DHIS2.  This is especially the case when you have more than one LMIS operating in the country / more than one system to report to 

From Carl to Everyone(08:00:23 AM) 

can someone comment on the 'data lakes' that was on slide 7 - i only saw t flash by 

From scott to Everyone(08:04:38 AM) 

hi all dropping off - thanks for the invite to the call.  Would love to follow-up on any connections here with facility registries, GIS data and OpenLMIS 

From Mary Jo to Everyone(08:05:57 AM) 

Carl, I can follow up with you about that and the research we are doing for how to handle reporting within OpenLMIS 

Governance Committee Charter (Archive)

  • Review votes and finalize
  • Voting structure - did it work/do we like it? Change to oral vote during monthly call?
  • Elect next Committee Chair

Kaleb Brownlow (Deactivated) Recommend written voting. Keeping a record, and in case someone can't join the call.

Karl Brown (Unlicensed) Why is there veto power for Gates and USAID? Is there a use case that showed up in the past that requires this kind of veto power? Seems un-community-like.

Kaleb Brownlow (Deactivated) Desire to develop an open community but with limited funders - trying to strike a balance. Vaccines for example - community could out-vote the funders, even though funding priority is for vaccine development.

Karl Brown (Unlicensed) - That seems to be different from the Governance structure of OpenLMIS. Community wants certain features - funder says we're only willing to fund a specific feature, then the community needs to deal with the ramifications of that. That's part of the contractual relationship with whoever the funding is going to. I don't see why that's part of the Governance of the Community itself. different features, doesn't match the community governance.

Kaleb Brownlow (Deactivated) Then needs to be more specific. Through our grant to VillageReach, vaccines has been a priority for us. Just make that a statement and a priority for VR to help implement that requires the broader community to engage on. I'm open to re-thinking the veto, but right now we have a weak funding base - how to balance funder perspectives with the wider community. How do we decide what to fund and where the gaps are, how do we identify other sources of funding to fill in those gaps?

Karl Brown (Unlicensed) Having a built-in veto power versus having open collaboration seems against Community principles. Gates makes a statement that they are funding vaccines, the Community agrees and accepts that vaccines are funded, but there's other functionality we want to explore, so we'll source other funding for that. In the worst case scenario, what if the Community says they don't want to do vaccines? Would then decide what to do. The veto could cause unnecessary friction.

Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed) Makes sense for the funders to have some extra power - whether we call it veto power or not, as long as we are dependent on the current funding. If we're so successful and have other funding sources than Gates in the future, we could revisit that idea.

Tenly Snow (Deactivated) Still some conversation to have around the charter, Karl Brown (Unlicensed) to add some points to the Governance thread. Can continue the conversation there.

OpenHIE Leadership

  • Actors in the space who should be involved in the conversation (organizations, individual contacts, context)
5Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)

Skipped in conversation due to time constraints. Follow up points:

Tenly Snow (Deactivated), Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated), and Jake Watson (Deactivated) had a conversation with Paul Biondich of OpenHIE around building leadership in OpenHIE and the open source space for LMIS and data management. Paul requested information about the actors in the space in order to get the conversation started.

Contact Tenly Snow (Deactivated) or Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated) for more information or to participate.

Malawi Update

  • Migration work has started.
  • Environment is being set up.
  • Requirements are being finalized.
5Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)

Skipped in conversation due to time constraints. Follow up points:

  • Migration work has started.
  • Environment is being set up.
  • Requirements are being finalized.

Estimated 3.1 Scope

  • Review and discuss scope : presentation
  • Finalization and voting
35Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)

Recommendation of the core OpenLMIS global team following two discussions on the Product committee and offline time to voice opinions and suggestions

Had a workshop with TW for stock mgmt - Brian from PATH joined. The outcome of many discussions. Looking at the timelines and resources for 3.1, some things are under discussion still.

Charter - Examples of requests coming in, for example from Malawi, unclear how to prioritize based on the funding we have available now. Good case to discuss as a group.

Karl Brown (Unlicensed) Spoke with Jake yesterday and TW team on the scope issues. Clarification - when it said "de-prioritized" it's not that those aren't considered important anymore. It's just that within the particular LOE through the end of May for this scope, those weren't able to fit into the scope. If the team size or length of time were expanded, they could be fit in. De-prioritized items are just relatively lower importance based on resourcing.

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated) Could use a different term. Could say, "not in scope for the 3.1 milestone release." Given the timelines and resources we have, we are not aiming to complete these unless velocity improves or these are brought in after 3.1. These and other things that aren't scheduled can always be put back in subsequently after the release.

Open Question: When do we decide that a feature is useful for the global core product and how do we go about prioritizing that with the other efforts that are in place? Do we try to seek funding for that work?

Karl Brown (Unlicensed) Have we heard the aggregate data request from others outside of Malawi?

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated) We have not, but this is just an example. We will bring more information on this to the Governance committee, but not ready to discuss it yet.

Karl Brown (Unlicensed) What is the role of the Governance committee in this? May be in the charter. Is this normally something we expect Governance to be voting on? Or is it more when Product can't come to agreement on something?

Tenly Snow (Deactivated) Open question - up for discussion. Does Governance need to approve? Is the process overkill? How to approach?

Karl Brown (Unlicensed) Discuss in the forum and then only ask Governance to make a decision in Product is not in agreement. Otherwise trust the Product committee.

Carl Leitner Governance provides useful feedback in terms of prioritization. Might have more information on funding availability and constraints that might not be available in the Product committee. How to get that feedback? Better than Product just saying, hey we have an issue, can you resolve it for us?

Tenly Snow (Deactivated) Will post this in the Governance forum for discussion

Gaurav Bhattacharya Would be helpful to know the magnitude of the features and how much that could set back the existing roadmap. If it could set back the roadmap, then could be discussed in Governance. Other aspect - how important is it for a next release of OpenLMIS or an implementation like Malawi?



Mary Jo and Tenly attending DHIS2 Symposium this week

Mattias and others from JSI attending the ICT4D conference and presenting on OpenLMIS.


Carl Leitner

Tenly Snow
Mary Jo Kochendorfer
Jake Watson 

Lindabeth Doby

Kaleb Brownlow

Mattias Wiklund
Ashraf Islam
Wendy Bommett 

Gaurav Bhattacharya

Karl Brown 

Douglas Khumalo
Nuran Idris