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

Meeting Number: 192 173 465

Host Key: 352864

Audio Connection: +1-415-655-0001

AGENDA

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

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

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.

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: