August 23rd 2016

Call 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=812747.50011

Meeting Number192 173 465

Host Key352864

Audio Connection +1-415-655-0001 


AGENDA:

ItemTimeLead

Review status of the roadmap and development

Sprint 6 finishes this week. Upcoming sprint will focus on Requisitions, Export to Order and UI.

10 min
  • 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 file formats should be available for exporting
40 min

Risks:

  • 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.
10 min

All

ACTION ITEMS:

 


ATTENDANCE:


 NOTES:

Action Items

ItemTimeLead

Review status of the roadmap and development

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated): provided a brief update. Sprint 6 finishes this week. Upcoming sprint will focus on Requisitions, Export to Order and UI.

Malawi update

  • PSM is still working out its contracting process and in conversation with the Malawi mission on the implementation.
  • Current plan is to aim for a summer of 2017 deployment (staggared after the 3.0 release in Feb). The scope of the phased release would focus on core OpenLMIS services, requisition to order export for external fulfillment.
  • VR plans to spin up a separate team to support the deployment so that we have an oppotunity to 'eat our dogfood' and
10 min
  • 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?

Lakshmi Balachandran What activities? Or how to display/prepare the information? Both are important to cover.

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)both. First let's start with the activities. We are starting to look into this and wanted to understand what the needs have been from current implementations.

Danni Yu (Unlicensed): for us, tracability of user activity (deactivate/activate product, go-live of facility, configuration related, program activation/deactivation, requisition has access logs, logging when APIs are called, technical logs). Danni agreed to share screen shots of what they have implemented.

Chris George (Unlicensed): shared his thoughts

  • users will want to access logs, could be simple as an export
  • why do we need the audit and then the scope of the development
  • Build an auditing framework based on what have been asked for in the past

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated): great points folks and tracking why the audit logs are needed is a great point to put the appropriate context around the scope

Danni Yu (Unlicensed): what tool are you thinking of using? It is important to consider the ease of use for the long term. Can an administrator of the system navigate and pull the data appropriately.

Dominic, from PSM, joined and folks did a round of introductions.

Dominic's introduction by text because his mic wasn't working.

Hi everyone! I'm Dominic Jones (Unlicensed), with USAID GHSC-PSM. I am an IBMer as Mary Jo mentioned. I've been working different aspects of this USAID effort since 2013, although we only got underway in Jan/2016. I was responsible for pulling together and leading the IBM team in defining the multiple supply chain capabilities now being released (Releases 0.1, 0.5 and 0.6 already deployed, Release 1 deploying this coming weekend). I've moved from the global side of the effort, to now be working on the country programs. My focus throughout my career has been on Information Resources Management. I've specialised in Enterprise Architecture and various aspects of systems engineering for transactional and analytical systems. I've covered a range of businesses in the private and public sections. I bring those experiences, skills and more to the GHSC PSM effort. And I'm hopefuly going to be able to contribute to the OpenLMIS community. Thanks for reading and I'm happy to be here!

45 min

Risks:

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

Not as much of a risk since there doesn't seem to be news of anyone implementing OpenLMIS prior to the Feb 3.0 release. Uganda is another potential implementation but currently on hold at the moment.

Move the following for next week.

  • 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.
5 min

All

 


RECORDING

OpenLMIS Product Committee-20160823 1512-1.arf


ADDITIONAL READING:


 


 

OpenLMIS: the global initiative for powerful LMIS software