PC: January 29 2019

• Interface - Interface with DHIS2 is getting underway.
• Requisition - Customizable notification messages is being scoped/defined.
• Ashraf how are things going on kitting? 

Discussion on OLMIS-5665 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Questions on how frequently users use google translate plug-in versus the in application translation?

The fix is large and want to understand how prevalent the use of the plug-in actually is.

Fix would only work for Google Translate and an entire review of the application for each field/item.

Simon Dean (Unlicensed) - will lock down and controlled environment to prevent users from accessing and performing actions we don't want them to. We will also be deploying on a private network. Essentially they can prevent or allow users to have access to specific applications. 

Dércio Duvane - raised that users can still log into the system and not use the supplied device. For instance, users could login from a private computer.

Wesley Brown - perhaps we could tackle this with a warning instead of changing OpenLMIS to support running with this application.

Dércio Duvane - would be wary of people not paying attention to the message and actually manually turn it off. Is it going to manual or automatic?

Sebastian Brudziński - we probably cannot automatically turn off the plug -in but could flash a message.

Simon Dean (Unlicensed) - has a work around been tried? What about turning off all translations?

Sebastian Brudziński - yes we could turn off everything.

Simon Dean (Unlicensed) - probably should leave it as a configuration.

Dércio Duvane - sounds like a good idea to turn off the google plug-in application.

Sebastian Brudziński - this should be possible and an easier fix. 

Update.

SMS decision

• https://forum.openlmis.org/t/sms-channel-solutions/4916

GAVI/GF RFI Response

Drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1OTc1sOuxH7Po95GQJzwUj-KS3LIllYGc

Submitted. Rebecca Alban (Unlicensed) will keep the team updated on the response and next steps.

Transitioning the Product Committee

• Mary Jo shares reflections
• Wes asks members what they find valuable (or not) to restructure going forward.

As we are going forward, do we want to change the structure or format of the product committee meetings?

Simon Dean (Unlicensed) - I'm currently ok with content. Would like to know more about the development process and prioritization process. Having insight into that would be useful.

Sebastian Brudziński - easier to see and set priorities going forward. It is challenging to do this, but it would be really useful. Could limit the options. Could involve more people. Make it easier to decide on what is next.

Dércio Duvane - I do look how we set up the meetings and content. Unfortunately we do not have the attendance we would like to have. Is there a plan to have a smaller group specific to geographies? It is hard time for their team to join.

Ryan Freeland (Deactivated) - observed that asking for input is challenging, but it would be useful to have more input from the countries. Perhaps cold calling are finding ways for more engagement because we need to hear from them. When issues are presented, it is useful to call out which country, users, context in framing the discussion and understanding what is going on.

Wesley Brown - one challenge is this committee falls in between the governance and technical committees. we cannot rely on PC to give consistent direction in a timely manner. Possible change would be to refocus this on implementers and their needs. Give another way to give feedback on the product itself. Would like to get more feedback from other individuals.

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated) People do want transparency in the development process but the sheer number of details makes it difficult to understand within the context of this meeting. However, people do gain value from hearing about what we're doing and giving feedback on priorities. Hope that we could find a process/feedback mechanism which this community buys into. Regarding the software development process, we could do a better job of being transparent about what we're doing and how the overall process is doing. Need to figure out how to break up the information so that it is more digestible. Other communities have had success with having a specific person (or group?) champion specific features. 

Key takeaway: try to create a clear evaluation framework for prioritization so folks can contribute and weigh in consistently. 

NFR Performance Update

NFR page: Non-Functional Requirements - performance

Next PC meeting: Topic ideas??

Continue the conversation on changing things up.