Balance - Balancing goals of competing features and supporting community processes
Question: Would other organizations be involved in OpenLMIS implementation projects or just core development?
Yes, a mix of both. May be involved in both
Kyle: When we say "focused on OpenLMIS" are we referring to core development or to implementations?
MJ: What Carl was asking - this refers to all organizations and a mix of activities. The other teams may have other projects unrrelated to OpenLMIS. The core team that VR has historically supported are not fully funded on this project. With additional funding we'll still have those four dedicated members, but outside of that we can't speak to everyone (Ona, JSI, etc.)
Jake: It is our hope though that getting people spun up on v3 architecture that they could go after those. By growing the number of software devs that are "fluent" in this architecture there would be a larger implementer pool to draw from. Definitely a by-product that we want. We want JSI and Ona to be able to go after implementations using version 3. Just as VR used SolDevelo to backstop the Malawi implementation, then JSI or Ona could take the lead.
Ashraf: JSI provides support tangentially to OpenLMIS through eLMIS.
Carl: From my perspective I think this is a good thing to have a mixture of core and impleemntation work. Helps "ground" that core work and specific country requests. There could be positive effects. Can talk more about how to balance this.
Kyle: Wants to talk more about this, specifically about implementations and linking lessons learned back to the global community.
It's Kyle's prefernce from past experience, provides great insight for programmers to learn specific challenges during implementation. Should really look at that model.
1 - implementation expereience, challenges
2 - implementation perspective: important to understand and limit the forking of country instances. Devs need to have experience in both places
3 - country perspective: responsiveness to challenges, bugs, etc.
Edward: Wanted to thank MJ and Jake for making this process very consultative and collaborative
Original proposal, had some language that Digital Square is mandated to find additional resources to cover activities that weren't covered in the original proposal. May be some things that are covered in the original proposal.
Carl: What we want to do is continue to simplify the proposal process. More of a task order shortened process and add annual activities on top of that. Just because you have the initial approval for the gap analysis funding, want to make sure that these additional task orders are easy for you to manage.
Edward: Quick question, what is the appetite for additional funding for OpenLMIS. Are Digital Square folks open to that? Will enlarge the pool?
Carl: Digital square management team doesn't make the decision. The governing board does. The board doesn't have a prioritization framework yet. We will present a framework to them in February board meeting. Will then use that as input for the end of April board meeting. Have an early draft of what that might look like. He doesn't know if they'll look for depth or breadth. But the language that was in the announcement was encouraging breadth. Not sure what the ultimate decision
Ashraf: The way you described it Carl (depth and breadth), before a critical mass has been obtained for the depth, the breadth will make more sense. Depth (# of global goods)
Edward: A variety of organizations here, what is the role of the community and new business development. How do opportunities get sent out? Obviously if you're the person receiving the inquiries and then bidding on them, how do we keep this as transparent as possible? Open question. How do we triage opportunities? Is there a group that is part of the community to figure out on our own what makes the most sense? What should the new business process look like?
Jake: What you're alluding to is that there is an inherant tension or appearance in the fact that Community Manager has been doing business development, but ultimately is a VillageReach employee. How to mitigate that, how to move OpenLMIS out of VR? Most immediately, how do we ensure that there is no conflict of interest. More implementatino work will be coming forward. How do we ensure that everyone can respond to these queries. Does anyone want to add onto that problem statement.
Carl: Two issues:
Transparency for inquiries process
What is the responsibility if the opportunity doesn't come into the regular channels to share that with the community? Responsibility to share?
Jake: Would also like to determine amongst Community members how we're going to review opportunities and respond, or not? Received feedback on Cambodia RFP, why didn't we respond?
Edward: May find out about opportunities later once the timeline has expired.
Matt Berg: Similar situation with the OpenSRP community. About who is actively involved. More important than how communication arrives. Has been a balancing act. We let people know if we're planning on bidding on a project. Opportunities for collaboration? Sometimes even bid against each other.
Carl: Can skip to next agenda item (wrapped up in the same agenda item)
All inquiries via email@example.com or the website forms on openlmis.org are auto-forwarded to a Google Forum or Slack channel.
Governance Charter, Community Structure, Approval Processes
Set timeline for revisiting, publishing, and agreeing
Carl: Designee from the active organizations in terms of responding to inquiries. Who will be "on point" for responding to queries? Ambassador model is being used in OpenHIE. Can continue this conversation and find something that is comfortable for everybody. Part of the larger process of looking at the existing charter for the Governance committee → relationship to Product Committee. Take a look at revising the Charter to address issues that are coming up and formalize the Product/Governance relationship. With Digital Square we expect to have some funding that isn't tied to specific deliverables. If Governance and Product are well-structured, can delegate more responsibility to those committee. What are new functional requirements that aren't well funded? Want to ensure that the funding is there. Anyone interested in looking at that can propose a revised charter at the next Governance committee call.
Jake: In working group, will discuss issue of lead sharing and come up with mechanisms to promote greater transparency as well as address the voting and approval processes.