PC: February 19 2019
Last Meeting Notes: PC: January 29 2019
AGENDA
Item | Lead (Time) | Notes and Updates |
|---|---|---|
Software Development Update Roadmap: Living Product Roadmap Current sprint: Backlog Grooming Sprint 119 Upcoming sprint: Backlog Grooming Sprint 120 Release:
Team stats: https://openlmis.atlassian.net/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12504 Velocity: Context: Includes all four teams. Team performance is impacted by manual testing, regression testing began in Sprint 105, released 3.4 in Sprint 106, released 3.5 in Sprint 113, Holidays impacted 114 and 115.  | Wesley Brown (5 min) |
|
Feedback on OLMIS-5665 - Getting issue details... STATUS | Sebastian Brudziński (5 min) | Summary: Google Translate Chrome plugin can cause issues in requisition calculations. Found with setup for Angola. Had two recommendations to have Google Translate ignore our pages but neither worked. The team felt that it was not worth the additional effort to look into this further. |
Discussion on Facility Suppliers: From Sebastian (via Slack): Can anyone confirm that my understanding is correct... Is all of the above right, or am I not understanding something correctly? | Sebastian Brudziński (15 min) | Feature difference on the Convert to order screen: v3 - No way to select any other supplier than the one that has been configured for the specific facility v2 - User could select any supplier that they have rights for Does v3 need to support the v2 approach? Ashraf - v2 is more flexible and is in use in the field Brian - Agree with Ashraf and thinking of requirements for TZ (because of two separate systems) Is the v2 approach enough or are there improvements that can be made? Ashraf - As long as the v2 approach is supported, that is enough Josh - Does an implementation configure the supplier list? Sebastian - It is currently configured by supply line but only a single supplier can be configured
|
Mockup for Kits Epic: OLMIS-1302 - Getting issue details... STATUS UI Mockup: https://openlmis.mybalsamiq.com/projects/olmis-5987/grid | Ashraf (15 min) | Discourse Discussion: https://forum.openlmis.org/t/soliciting-feedback-mockup-for-kits/4979 If had bar codes, would be using same functionality for GTIN. Thought is that a GTIN isn't required, but could be (e.g., medical stores may have ability to assign a GTIN). Concept is larger packaging of products that can have its own GTIN. Manufacturer may also have created a kit that is composed of different components (e.g., like a first aid kit) View https://openlmis.mybalsamiq.com/projects/olmis-5987/grid for additional feedback on design |
Transitioning the Product Committee
| Wesley Brown | As we are going forward, do we want to change the structure or format of the product committee meetings? Previous Discussion 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. A 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. |
Next PC meeting: Topic ideas?? | Continue the conversation on changing things up. | |
Additional Requests and Information: |
ATTENDANCE:
Wesley Brown, Ashraf, Brian Taliesin, Josh Zamor, Sebastian Brudziński, Chifundo Chilivumbo (Deactivated), Chris Opit (Unlicensed), Parambir S Gill (Unlicensed), Dércio Duvane, Rebecca Alban (Unlicensed)
RECORDING:
- Wesley Brown to paste meeting link once ready
ADDITIONAL READING:
OpenLMIS: the global initiative for powerful LMIS software