August 9th 2016

August 9th 2016

Attendance Information

8:15AM PST - Seattle

11:15AM EST - New York, DC

5:15PM CEST - CEST, Geneva, Copenhagen, Joburg

6:15PM EAT - Dar


Webex Linkhttps://meetings.webex.com/collabs/#/meetings/detail?uuid=M299H1X42RL8F1ABXL3LOKN9TN-3O29&rnd=484955.51579

Meeting Number192 173 465

Host Key352864

Audio Connection +1-415-655-0001 


AGENDA

Item

Time

Presenter

Item

Time

Presenter

Discussion the risks identified by committee members

  • 2. Are we building the right product for our target environment?

  • 11. Too many new country requests / distractions / demands of project teams (scope creep)

  • 3. Solution too complex for end users

  • 1. New deployments that are needed before 3.0 is done

  • 7. OpenLMIS community stays dependent on centralized funding from 1-2 primary sources and fails to diversify and encompass open source development principles

  • 6. OpenLMIS community fails to grow. Stays small and driven by self-interest

  • 5. Perception of code review as an acceptance of the story. The role of code review.

  • New risk identified by Lakshmi: Countries do not migrate to 3.0.

  • Any other risks?

30 min

@Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)

Follow up: present the new feature verification process diagram

5 min

@Kevin Cussen (Deactivated)

Update on the roadmap and work coming up next

5 min

@Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)

Potential Items for discussion

  • Request for User Personas used across deployments

 

 

ACTION ITEMS

  • Product Committee members to share the user personas they used for deployments.

  • Product committee members to share thoughts on risks on an ongoing basis.

@Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated) to upload the feature verification process to the wiki.

Next week we will discuss:

  • Remaining Risks

  • Review status of the roadmap

  • Discussion around what, who, when, why (possibly) we'd want audit logging to cover

    • Are there any standards in the industry? Did any of the deployments have specific requirements?

    • What activities should be covered? What basic elements do we want the log to contain?

  • Discuss offline error handling for requisitions offline (here)

  • What formats should be available for exporting file types


Attendance

  • @Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)

  • @Kevin Cussen (Deactivated)

  • @Tenly Snow (Deactivated)

  • @Chris George (Unlicensed)

  • @Danni Yu (Unlicensed)

  • @Lakshmi Balachandran

  • @Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed)

 


 NOTES:

 

Discussion the risks identified by committee members

Risk #2. Are we building the right product for our target environment?

  • What do we do about it if we build the right product? If we go to a country, and it doesn't meet the needs.  We course correct. Hopefully we the right architecture in place to support extension.

  • We want to find the common feature set for OpenLMIS

Risk #11. Too many new country requests / distractions / demands of project teams (scope creep)

  • @Chris George (Unlicensed) noted this is important for the committee to set expectations

  • Current strategies will need to be monitored over time and adjusted as needed

Risk #3. Solution too complex for end users

  • @Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed): Dealing with integrations with ERPs can be complicated

  • @Danni Yu (Unlicensed): Trainings will be required.  Should aim to keep OpenLMIS complexity at the same level. Users are can be overwhelmed.

  • @Kevin Cussen (Deactivated): we will continue to receive feedback on an ongoing basis

  • @Ashraf Islam (Unlicensed): balance what is required and what is not

Other risks will be addressed on an on needed basis. slot time for each call.

  • Risk #1. New deployments that are needed before 3.0 is done


  • Risk #7. OpenLMIS community stays dependent on centralized funding from 1-2 primary sources and fails to diversify and encompass open source development principles

  • Risk #6. OpenLMIS community fails to grow. Stays small and driven by self-interest

  • Risk #5. Perception of code review as an acceptance of the story. The role of code review.

  • New risk identified by Lakshmi: Countries do not migrate to 3.0.

Follow up: present the new feature verification process diagram

  • @Chris George (Unlicensed): Someone from the implementor team engage with the product committee.

  • @Kevin Cussen (Deactivated): we need to encourage implementors to engage as early as possible

Update on the roadmap and work coming up next

  • SolDevelo is in town

  • Showcase this week, Sprint 5.  We plan to have two basic services running (auth and requisitions)

  • Next sprint will focus on role based access, requisitions, converting reqs to orders, polish up the testing strategy, and start on the UI

 


RECORDING

OpenLMIS Product Committee-20160809 1500-1.arf

(To listen, you'll need to use the WebEx player)


ADDITIONAL READING:


 



 

OpenLMIS: the global initiative for powerful LMIS software