Page Comparison

5 min

Wes Brown

5 min

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NCBTHZT

Add some context before the first question. Why are we doing this, how will this be used, make a webpage in the GovStack explaining the exercise and invite the community to participate.

Move to the same service as is being used for the Women in GovStack survey (reach out to Yolanda for info)

• Have most information we need, need to add people on the USCT

• For specifications, who else needs to be added for each spec?

  • Need to include TAC preview team that reviewed the specifications (this list is with Yolanda)

    • Valeria to reach out to Yolanda for this list and update contributors section.

• Margus: request removal of Estonian gov’t as contributors for all the specifications and building blocks due to legal issues. They have a more rigorous validation process. MoFA needs to decide whether Estonia can be added.

  • Estonia gov’t is part of GovStack but when it comes to specifications and actual products, the Estonian gov’t cannot vouch for it, since the required validation procedure didn’t take place.

• USCT

  • Ramkumar has added Uwe and Max as a contributors.

• Include the list Ramkumar shared to the postpartum and infant care use case

List from Ramkumar:

Valerie Khan – ID BB Spec
David Forden – Security Spec
Max Carlson – Non-functional requirements, Security spec, USCT and Postpartum use cases
Jean Reynald - ??? Security BB spec
Uwe Washer – Non-functional requirements, USCT use case
Debora Comparin - ??? ID BB spec
Raul Kaidro – ID BB, and I think he also did some work on the use cases, but not sure which ones Participated in defining use-case step defintition template
Trevor Kensey – Non-functional Requirements, Arch Team
Amy Darling – She was the tech writer that worked on updates to the spec after the first TAC reviews – contributed updates to all of the specs, I think. V0.9 specs cleanup
Frank Grozel – Registration and Registries specs
Tambet Artma - ??? registration and registeries
Magnus Hult - ??? Messaging BB Specs
Bramhanand Jha - ???   Messaging BB Specs
John Cordiero - ???  Messaging BB Specs
James Dailey – Payments spec
Oscar Correia - ??? Payments spec
Francesco Pasti - ??? payments bb specs
Luukas Ilves - ??? Payments bb specs
Sanjay Jain - ???  paymetns bb specs
Khuram Farooq - ???paymetns bb specs
Achim Blume - ???   paymetns bb specs
Edgar Whitley - ??? ID BB specs
Jonathan Marksell - ???  ID BB specs
Vyjanthi Desai – Possibly input on ID ID BB specs
Saurav Bhatta – USCT use case
Deepti - ???  ID BB specs
Aleksa Krolls – Workflow BB + IM BB
Conforn Mankga - ???Workflow BB
Lal Chandran – Consent BB
Sille Sepp – Consent BB,

The wave 3 BBs are not using any use cases to help inform the scope. Can we help resolve this?

• Ramkumar: for each BB, the team identified relevant use cases and developed content on this, with a focus on the domain of the building block i.e, with GIS how it is used in disaster management. They do not have a specific template for these use cases, but plan to update the use cases to align with the current use case template.

  • These developments to be shared with the Product team.

• Steve: would be good to share the existing use cases (USCT, construction permit and maternal care use cases) with the wave 3 group.

• Rachel: can we all decide not to commission further BB work without first identifying the use cases and the briefs on the project. Work on the use cases first and then identify the applicable BBs.

• Ramkumar: need to consider cases where we are approached by countries or informed of implementations that have taken place in countries.

• Rachel: we should no longer be in a situation where same group is deciding what to build and how to do it.

TAC Review

• Ramkumar: specifications for TAC review by early July (wave 3 BB specs). It can take then 4-6 weeks to review, reiterate, finalize etc.

  • Start with internal review by June before it is shared with TAC team.

  • Mid-September is the hard deadline to be done with final documentations.

• Esther: Nice to document this TAC review process in an email thread with all relevant people in cc. This can help improve the process, schedule relevant meetings to coordinate. Important to also reflect on lessons learnt, best practices to conducting the TAC review.

  • Ramkumar will sent out an email linking everyone and listing all the relevant action items.

• Rachel: Not sure what the value of the first TAC review was it was more of a presentation format. Since this meeting, numerous changes have been made internally without TAC.

  • Ramkumar: TAC has been helpful. There are political implications. Important to include more countries and representatives to participate in this process. Many of these individuals could also be taking this back to their governments.

  • Ramkumar: maybe instead of TAC review, it can be called early preview to promote and market.

• Wave 2 TAC review list - available on GIZ Sharepoint.

• TAC review list for Wave 3 BBs hasn’t been put together yet.

• Wes: need to figure out specific ppl to reach out to for feedback, have a clear process and expectations prior to outreach. This is more relevant for Technical Committee to work on.

  • PSRAMKUMAR requested to organize and coordinate this.

Wes Brown

5 min

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/NCBTHZT

As per the May-22 GC, this survey is being handled by the comms huddle

• Ayush: This survey uploaded on GovStack’s website for users to provide input and feedback on which surveys to prioritize

  • Wes: Some of the sectors listed on the Exchange and on survey monkey are missing from the link Ayush shared.

• Ayush will replicate sectors, and update website.

Wes Brown

5 min

Next Steps

1. Get feedback from survey

   1. Try to identify use cases that will highlight the value of the GovStack approach

2. Identify potential use cases in each sector

   1. Find volunteers to analyze sectors and identify potential use cases

3. Decide on which use cases to prioritize for the next (post-1.0) publication

4. Present use case in GC get it approved

5. Launch the campaign

Jaume DUBOIS

Possible Mobile App Features

Jaume DUBOIS

Current priorities are:

1. Unconditional Social Cash Transfer

2. Construction Permit (Djibouti)

3. EPR (Rwanda) - Is this still a priority?

Even though this is likely a ways off (Sept-ish), are their use cases or sectors we would likely to prioritize next?

Margus Mägi

“EE GOV agency and they have an actual idea what security BB”

GIZ(for Estonia), Estonia, Dial (for GIZ), ITU