2018-06-21 Meeting notes

Governance mechanism review and alignment

Current proposed scope:

1. Review Roadmap Burn down and Team velocity

2. Identify and mitigate risks

3. Oversee travel budget and allocations. Includes approving travel for:

   • OpenLMIS conference attendance

   • In-person meetings

   • Trips for team members 

4. Monitor opportunities for funding more "gap" features

• Everyone agrees with this scope.

Travel Budget Discussion

Given that the team decided not to do a big kick off, I suggest we redo the budget estimates to mirror the plan of doing more frequent trips.  I encourage us to begin planning trips soon as we should get going on the cross team pollination.

First slice of funding: Effectiveness of teams

The assumption is that colocation is the most beneficial during requirements gathering and development.

Second slice of funding: Community funds and conferences.

Option: Amend the contracts to have more money for software development if we don't feel the need for colocation or community funds.

Matt: Colocation for discussions around integration between for reporting. 

Potential in person meeting around report definition metrics/indicators

• Ashraf, Edward, Matt, Craig agree with this idea

Integration and interoperability is another important topic for alignment.

OpenHIE Community Meeting and Connect-A-Thon OpenLMIS representation

• who can go? Interested?

• Craig as applied for sponsorship. He will let OpenLMIS know if he is accepted or needs support.

• Potentially Elias could represent OpenLMIS

Update: Brandon will attend.

Velocity

Matt: We would like to go faster. We will have more folks joining the team so hopefully our velocity will pick up.

Edward: Things are going along pretty well and getting used to the process. 

Sam: First sprints are about ramping up the team and writing tickets. We hope the velocity picks up.

Question: How comfortable are we with sharing costs?

Edward: Okay with the larger project. Concerned about sharing by team. Focus should be on if we are achieving what we said we were. Let's make sure we aren't going down a rabbit hole.

• Ashraf: perhaps take a look within the teams.

Matt: I'm comfortable sharing the aggregate numbers in terms of burn. Not sure a comparison around cost would be useful.

Sam: would like to understand and put context around what those numbers mean.

Summary

• Community: share burn

• Project team: Will be done one on one and only bubble up if there is a key concern

• Path: will have the final numbers

Are Team Leads getting the hang of our process? Are there any desired changes? Would be useful to understand if Team Leads feel empowered or are stuck

Each member will report out based on what their Team Leads have told them.

• @Edward Wilson will report out what @Ashraf has shared.

• @Matt Berg (Unlicensed) will report on what @Craig Appl (Unlicensed) has shared.

• @Brandon Bowersox-Johnson will report on what @Sam Im (Deactivated) as shared. 

How does the manual testing and qa get reflected in the velocity?

• Manual testing should be included in the story points.

Sam: will have this discussion with team leads.

Gap Project Roadmap

• Review the status of the roadmap