Item | Presenter | Time | Notes |
|---|
Review Action Items | @Sainabou Jallow | 5 min | Ramkumar: circulated the terminology document (see attached pdf under action items). Rachel: the process has started to move most of the relevant documents onto Confluence, with some going into Gitbook. Jaume: As the Togo visit has been postponed, the translations will now be done around March/April. If anyone needs the translations urgently, they can get in touch with him. Also it is best to wait to translate the latest versions of the documents and diagrams within GovStack.
|
|---|
Scenario Improvements Approval Process on Jira | @Jaume DUBOIS / @Dominika Bieńkowska (Deactivated) | 5 min | Dominika: as a testing team, they are working on the testing configurations. They need approval from the technical side, expert side and the building block domain side. Basically needs approval from the building block leads on whether the scenarios the testing team is providing are correct and acceptable. Jaume: He cannot make the approval decisions on his own, believes the working group members involved on the preparation of the test case etc., should participate in this review and validation/ ticket approval process. Requested that Dominika schedule a meeting between the building block working group members and the testing team to go through the Jira change requests/tickets submitted by her team, in order to facilitate a global approval process. Meelis: For the scenario improvements approval, suggest that the tickets should be assigned to the leads of working groups to facilitate approval. The working group leader can then gathered the relevant people to decide who to involve in the approval process. The test team can join in the meeting if it's relevant. Ramkumar: Agrees that the building block working group members should be involved in the approval process. They should get to know the testing team and participate in this process.
|
|---|
Use Case Task Flow | @Steve Conrad / @PSRAMKUMAR | 15 min | Use Case Task Flow - proposed format to show the end to end work that's going on in GovStack - specifying all the integration points across the teams so that the documentations and handovers are very clear between various groups. Objective is to provide more visibility on what's going on in all of the different groups, showing a clear roadmap, timeline and being able to understand what's on track, behind, the blockers etc,. Next steps: will circulate this as a test case for both Technical and Product Committees to review, before it is shared with the Governance Committee for approval. Rachel: This flow highlights the importance of an efficient/ used documenting and Jira issuing system by all in order for everyone to be kept up-to-date on working being done. Steve: all the different groups will need to be responsible for keeping track and updating tasks for each new use case or work done. Taylor: requested more clarity on the integration between Gitbook and Jira - how the work happening in Gitbook is reported and updated on Jira. Rachel: As long as you put the Jira issue number in the RR description when submitting change requests on Gitbook, it should reflect back on the Jira issue. Meelis: what are some of the constraints on this flow and the timeline? Ramkumar: They will have to first test out this flow process using a few use case examples in order to evaluate the constraints and lessons learnt learnt.
|
|---|
The “Product” Committee Name | @Sainabou Jallow | 5 min | Using the term “product” for this committee has been confusing for a long time. Let’s figure out a better (or at least less overloaded) term and use it instead. Ramkumar: main role of this committee is around use case journey breakdown - not that this should be the title, but it should be reflected in the name. Suggest to have a session to discuss the usefulness of a generalized version of the use cases. Keeping in mind that country teams need to showcase country specific demos of these use cases, and governments might find country specific use cases more useful. Could be useful for the sandbox to provide a pathway to demonstration country specific use cases.
Jaume: the issue we have to solve is not the name of this committee, but to define its purpose, and a medium term roadmap that can adapt to the needs of countries and still provide the minimum requirement the Technical team needs. Moritz: Suggest this discussion be moved to next week following the Geneva meeting - as GIZ and the team there will be discussing what concrete purpose of each committee, how the work should be allocated, organize etc. Rachel: Jake and relevant parties should be part of this because it's a decision based upon the governance of the project overall. Proposed names in chat: Gatekeeper Use Case Committee
|
|---|
Review Use Case Feedback Process & Additional Feedback on EPR Use Case | @Sainabou Jallow | 10 min | Use Case feedback process: facilitate interactive workshop format sessions using Miroboard. Also reach out to external subject matter experts for input on best practices and feedback on the use case steps. Ramkumar: we should start considering the scalability of the use case feedback process - amount of time required for various people that need to be involved. Jaume: having brainstorming sessions could generate new ideas, however as more people are getting involved in the use cases, er need to ensure a transformative process in defining the objective, governance, and organization structure. Need to realign on how the different teams are interacting, the convergence points, incentives etc. For the use cases - we need to have different standpoints: a process standpoint, a citizen standpoint, government standpoint etc.
|
|---|
