Date

24 Oct 2017

Attendees

Goals

Discuss the process for populating and prioritizing the OpenLMIS aspirational roadmap
Combined workplan, based off of a request from Gates/USAID https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mwMqFOAQaVNs13qfa7O3mzauSR79-jQ_eaPZPP2VnzU/edit#gid=0
If time: Review the current list of gap analysis work https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yl6wBGeFUD04eGY0e4Ugu7hYk1DrvqdqRO5754G8Tpc/edit#gid=0

Background

Currently we have the Living Product Roadmap for the Gates Vaccine work

Examples of other open source roadmaps:

OpenNebula: Roadmap. Ticket based input and coordination. Members can suggest features and then they are slotted for work based on specific criteria. View of features.
OpenStack: Roadmap. OpenStack is committed to an open design and development process. The community operates around a six-month, time-based release cycle with frequent development milestones. During each release cycle, the community gathers for the Forum to gather requirements from users, then developers meet at the Project Teams Gathering (PTG) to begin development work and cross-project collaboration. Example community generated PDF roadmap, here.

Discussion items

Item	Who	Notes
Background and goal of the aspirational roadmap	Carl Leitner	Let's have an aspirational roadmap to support prioritization and how to get it funded. What is in the roadmap? Process of how we get to agreement
Process for Roadmap	Mary Jo	Reviewing OpenNebula roadmap process - ticket based system based on demand. Priorities based on who the submitter is/what their role Does not have a "high-level / conceptual road map" that would be useful for donors/investors Reviewing OpenStack - meeting twice a year in person to develop PDF which scopes out release. Much more of an open-person / dialog based development. On the call, was interest in a hybrid approach. What would work for our community: in-person is challenging because of funding for travel OpenNebula process may be challening because there isn't a lot of current engagement wth the ticketing system So far, only verbal input for feature request Carl: What could the hybrid approach look like? Perhaps a virtual community process of pooling in the features. Smaller meeting to do the synthesis work and prioritization. Perhaps leverage travel to a conference or another venue. Need to document the expectations of the stakeholders
		potential TOR/expectations for product committee to support development of aspirational roadmap (may need to clarify with examples) Product Committee Review and consolidate user stories from user and implementor communities user stories / features coming from issue tracker submissions as well as synthesized by implementing organizations as they work with users how can we ensure user community members can directly submit feature requests to the product committee? how do we ensure accountability of implementing organizations to provide feedback ?via tickets? and actively engage in the development of the roadmap? who defines/approves the high level roadmap? who is the product owner? should we use issues/tickets to track feature reqeusts? who curates/synthesize? Resource estimation (LOE for features) Prioritization of user requirements (decide and confirm what goes into the release) Prepare the feature roadmap for approval by governance committee Release Sub-committee manage the release cycle can be aligned with an in-person meeting

Time

Item

Who

Notes

Background and goal of the aspirational roadmap

Carl Leitner

Let's have an aspirational roadmap to support prioritization and how to get it funded.
What is in the roadmap?
Process of how we get to agreement

Process for Roadmap

Mary Jo

Reviewing OpenNebula roadmap process - ticket based system based on demand. Priorities based on who the submitter is/what their role
Does not have a "high-level / conceptual road map" that would be useful for donors/investors
Reviewing OpenStack - meeting twice a year in person to develop PDF which scopes out release. Much more of an open-person / dialog based development.
On the call, was interest in a hybrid approach.
What would work for our community:
- in-person is challenging because of funding for travel
- OpenNebula process may be challening because there isn't a lot of current engagement wth the ticketing system
- So far, only verbal input for feature request
Carl: What could the hybrid approach look like?
- Perhaps a virtual community process of pooling in the features.
- Smaller meeting to do the synthesis work and prioritization. Perhaps leverage travel to a conference or another venue.
- Need to document the expectations of the stakeholders

potential TOR/expectations for product committee to support development of aspirational roadmap (may need to clarify with examples)

Product Committee

Review and consolidate user stories from user and implementor communities
- user stories / features coming from issue tracker submissions as well as synthesized by implementing organizations as they work with users
- how can we ensure user community members can directly submit feature requests to the product committee?
- how do we ensure accountability of implementing organizations to provide feedback ?via tickets? and actively engage in the development of the roadmap?
- who defines/approves the high level roadmap? who is the product owner?
- should we use issues/tickets to track feature reqeusts? who curates/synthesize?
Resource estimation (LOE for features)
Prioritization of user requirements (decide and confirm what goes into the release)
Prepare the feature roadmap for approval by governance committee

Release Sub-committee

manage the release cycle
can be aligned with an in-person meeting

Action items

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated) to come up the operational roadmap proposal and discussed with the teams in GDHF side-meeting
Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated) to come up with an aspirational roadmap process/approach for the review of the committees