Call Information

8:15AM PST - Seattle
11:15AM EST - New York, DC
5:15PM CEST - CEST, Geneva, Copenhagen, Joburg
6:15PM EAT - Dar

Webex Link: https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/#/meetings/detail?uuid=M299H1X42RL8F1ABXL3LOKN9TN-3O29&rnd=812747.50011

Meeting Number: 192 173 465

Host Key: 352864

Audio Connection: +1-415-655-0001

AGENDA:

Item

Time

Lead

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

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)

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

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)

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

Danni Yu (Unlicensed) to share screen shots and information about the audit logging implemented for ESMS
Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)to share with the group the timing around when the testing environment will be up and available (should be soon)

Item

Time

Lead

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.

Danni Yu (Unlicensed): When will the testing environment be up?

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

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)

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!

Discuss offline error handling for requisitions offline (here)
- Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated) What do each of you think based on your experience and needs of the countries.
- Danni Yu (Unlicensed) - Option A: one download/one upload per user. build out more if and when needed.
- Chris George (Unlicensed) - Option A seems to work for our implementation.
What file formats should be available for exporting
- Chris George (Unlicensed): 1. excel, 2. csv, 3. PDF
- Group agreed on the importance of having excel

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)- Going forward, how does the committee want to review the new features and scope? Can I send out pre-reads? Or should it be more summarized
- Chris George (Unlicensed): open conversation works and use the product listserv more often around ideas
- Danni Yu (Unlicensed): agreed.
- Lakshmi Balachandran: mostly depends on bandwidth, liked to look at final versions

45 min

Mary Jo Kochendorfer (Deactivated)

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: