Description: Summarize what we seek to accomplish in 2016, activities/owners, and any working agreements needed to facilitate those goals

Leads: Dykki

To Join Remotely:

Join the call: https://www.uberconference.com/info3285

Optional dial-in number: 716-293-6106

PIN: 63498

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Sandy Hawley

Notes from Session:

COMMUNITY COUNCIL RESPONSIBILITIES- DELEGATED GOV (We agree)

We have to be specific about responsibilities, structure, membership, communication - need to articulate the responsibilities of the governing bodies
- Community Council, Governance "team" - (teams are not governing bodies, they collaborate, but don't have authority on direction)
- Technical Committee (decided) 3 members 1 CHAI, TW, VR- decision making power over tech contributions; propose committee select direction moving forward
  - people felt like they could commit the time, CHAI on hold, PATH should make a case to join if they have interest or time (time wasn't an issue for those partners)
Community Council and Tech Committee have equal authority - collaborate on key decisions; sample responsibilities:
- membership prop
- conflict resolution
  - OpenLMIS needs an EMR (clients demand it) - this group would make that decision
- Values and product principals, stewarding that and revising
- Processes (onboarding)
- Ordaining gov bodies
- Direction
  - Community
  - Product (this seems the most challenging)
- Format:
  - Annual Meeting + one off sessions
  - Product Dev- how do we drive the community that is flexible but not schizophrenic
  - We don't want to move forward with good process
  - HOW does stuff get on the roadmap
We heard
- move quickly
- not have a lot of process
Role of Product Manager - right product (we don't have this roll filled right now- so Governance board is driving that)
Product Architect- build right way
Collaborate on Roadmap- but eventually define Product Manager role and evolve
Do people want to be on the PM Committee OR this is something that the Community Council decides?
Do we empower one person (PM) to be the leader or committee has ability to hire the position? Committee has oversight on the person
TECH COMM (proposed : Josh, Elias, Jeff)- build the product the right way
- every other week 2x month
PRODUCT COMM (Proposed: Kevin, Rene, Chai (TBD) - build the right product- seek advice and direction from gov. group and others via Annual Mtg)
- manages risk of partner development outside scope; we need technical resources
GOV COMM: (Enabling Comm)
- we need people to drive/lead community beyond Comm. Manager, resolve higher level issues, funding
- advantages of formalization - avoid risk of alienating people when there is no structure
- unusual for a group not to have a formal group
- "grab bag"
- funding and advocacy- somebody needs to do this, manage this (not urgent, but needs to happen, PM and TC shouldn't be their priority)- if you don't assign someone, it won't happen
  - if effort of community to allocate resources should be highly focused on PM and TC, GOV enables/supports those roles
- community processes (values, principal maintenance,
- communication- emails
- MONTHLY conversation (record)
- Monthly emails
- power to help with conflict management- review, provide comments (if things required a vote committee members vote when you can't reach consensus)
- Annual Meeting give opportunity for input from community- PM and TC execute
We need consensus on priorities of roadmap-PM needs to be empowered to make decisions, unless overruled or there isn't consensus within PM Committee

CORE vs. COMMUNITY MODULES

Community-Supported vs. "other"
It is not as simple as "it's part of it, or not part of product (Core v/s Universe)
1) Core Product +
2) Opt-In Modules are either Community Supported OR Custom
If you're implementing "quick and dirty" it's not important to community short term- OR I'm going to spend more, take more time so that other people can use this as a community supported plug-in because community may want to use it (bar-coding)
- if country can't support it,
- OR spend more money to make it more useful
if bar-coding is not on the community roadmap, but there is funding to do it, could meet the code standards but it's not on the roadmap - there is a place for such things
How do we incentivize partners to contribute back- defining the distinction is key- it will guide implementers ability to contribute (or not because of time and $ constraints)
- We have to have an architecture and supports to distinguish core vs universe; with "optional" capability (PRODUCT vs TECH!)
  - "community supported" and modules have specific meaning and mean different thing to different people

WHAT WE DIDN'T GET TO (try for later today or post-meeting

2016 plan commitments
issue tracker
teams and team members
what will get done in the next 12 months- Roadmap
communication processes - way to have more visibility and collaboration on implementations- past, present, issues etc
- best way to share OpenLMIS opps w/ community
country engagement strategies
building capacity of OpenLMIS
next meeting around a common agenda (GHSC?)