2016-08-18 Developers Forum

2016-08-18 Developers Forum

How to Join

 

Agenda

  • Quickly review previous meeting minutes (5 min)

  • Platform Technical Road Map – Objective 1.1

  • Review next meeting agenda

Minutes

Attendees

  • Jamie Thomas

  • Darius Jazayeri

  • Burke Mamlin

  • Ada Yeung

  • Wyclif Luymia

  • Srimaurya Kummamuru

  • Daniel Kayiwa

  • Willa Mhawila

  • Jeff Neiman

Agenda

  • Platform Technical Road Map – Objective 1.1

Notes

Who do you think are the users/consumers of the OpenMRS Platform?

  • Implementations of OpenMRS

  • Service providers who implement OpenMRS for others

  • orgs who have OpenMRS implemented for them by some service provider

  • Distributions of OpenMRS

  • Module authors

  • Organizations with vested interest in or dependency on the Platform 

  • Academic Institutions using OpenMRS

  • Developers who contribute to openmrs-core (and the rest of the platform)

Are there people/groups who are not currently users of the Platform We should be targeting?

  • Other projects who could leverage OpenMRS as part of their solutions

  • Strategic partners

  • Vendors of systems that can integrate with OpenMRS

Are there people/groups who may be using the platform, but should not be our (community) focus/priority?

  • Hackers

  • Individuals needs/opinions/suggestions that do not include investment

  • People using OpenMRS solely for learning

  • e.g. Global North colleges using OpenMRS to teach about Open Source

  • Developer-defined features/priorities

  • Making developers efficient/productive definitely IS a goal, but the road map should not be developer-driven

Is the Technical Road Map page sufficient?

http://om.rs/roadmap

  • More effectively giving people fair warning of upcoming features

  • For example, we created a mailing list long ago to target module authors to notify them of upcoming changes. This could be a Talk forum and/or creating a distribution list via modulus (published modules)

  • Improve accuracy of Road Map page to reflect where efforts/resources will be directed

  • Indicate what is *really* scheduled work (currently, things listed under the next Platform and Refapp releases), versus what's really just a backlog (currently, things on the Refapp 2.6+ and Someday sections)

  • Better reflect reality (e.g., currently largely driven by what organizations are prioritizing, with a nudge towards community-priority tickets)

  • Improve documentation and design of wish list (someday) features

How should the platform road map be prioritized?

  • Have guidelines that let developers & implementations know how things get prioritized

  • We should be more honest, and make sure people actually know that mostly things are *not* prioritized in any intentional way

  • Clarify how legacy versions are supported

  • Help describe how anyone in the community can backport a feature to an earlier version (including what is or what is not appropriate for backporting)

  • Explicit product architecture team (mix of developers/BAs/PMs/SMEs/Product owners) driving the vision

  • Responsible for balancing all inputs and defining the priorities

  • Generates the priority-ranked backlog of tasks/projects to reach the vision

  • Not responsible for driving day-to-day development

  • Invest in defining/describing projects/features

  • Share these (e.g., via wiki or Talk), allowing volunteers (individuals or orgs) to take them on

  • Consider having feature-driven releases (i.e., release manager's job is to get feature X into a release)

  • Separate Platform and Reference Application technical road maps

Related:

  • Bahmni's Process

Who should constitute the OpenMRS Platform architecture Review Board?

  • Representative(s) of Implementer Community (e.g., Jan Flowers)

  • Representatives of users of the Platform

  • Implementer Community (Jan Flowers)

  • Orgs (TW, PIH, Regenstrief, I-TECH, Soldevelo, etc.)

  • Module authors

  • Experts

 

Transcripts