2023-09-27 - Product Committee
Date
Sep 27, 2023
Participants
Meeting Recording
Recording URL: Product Committee Meetings-20230927_090559-Meeting Recording.mp4
Discussion topics
Item | Presenter | Time | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Review Action Items |
| 5 min |
|
Inclusion of new software in GovStackWorkingGroup | @Aleksander Reitsakas & @Rachel Lawson (Unlicensed) | 15 min | ITU have funded a number of software products that implement building blocks.
Discussions The products that were adapted/updated for GovStack compliance will need to be maintained over time. Who is responsible for that work? How will it be tracked? Ramkumar: The contracted companies have not yet delivered their goods. The general question is where we store this content (whether coming from contracted work or from others) in the future. Also want to encourage and support Product Owners who will do this themselves Steve: GovStack should not be responsible to maintain specific providers. This could create a conflict of interest and we don’t (currently) have capacity to do this anyway. Suggest that each contracted company be responsible to create an accessible repo for the BB provider they implemented Margus: These providers could also be contributed back to the project in question. There are some legal questions about the IP (Wes: this is true for much of GovStack). The maintenance of the provider can be with the contracted company Rachel: Discussion on Slack here: https://govstack.slack.com/archives/C02UJ17TQH2/p1695815884428459 . There are various types of content related to BB software (detailed in the Slack messages). Provider code should be located at ITU (the contract owner) Nico: Originally the expectation was that BB software config (and code?) would reside in the Wes: I would have a priority list:
One and two are very unlikely to continue maintaining code Margus: The overhead may not be very much for the project (Wes: I strongly disagree here). Vendor may have a vested interest to maintain their provider Ramkumar: |
New regular agenda item for Teams check-in (1-2 teams a week) | @Nico Lueck | 15 min | Purpose: Sharing status and sync of all products being development within GovStack Example: @Nico Lueck can do a 5 min update on compliance team status Wes: I suggest that we change the focus of the PC to Operations and Team Updates. The Reference Use Cases becomes another team that provide an update Margus: In favor of changing the focus of the PC but worried about managing the time. Teams should prepare simple bulleted list of updates prior to meeting, unless a presentation (or something) is needed. Ramkumar: Viewpoint should be on specific products (GovGood) and what needs to be done with them. Not just status updates. Align it to the product roadmap Wes: I purpose that we make changes to the meeting after the 23Q3 publication |
Business Taxation Use Case | @Sainabou Jallow | 20 min | Business taxation use case: GitBook
|
Not Discussed |
|
|
|
Digital Impact Exchange and GovStack Relationship/Integration | @Steve Conrad | 15 min |
|
Inclusive Financial Services Use Case | @Sainabou Jallow | 20 min | Use Case: GitBook |
23Q3 Publication Status | @Wes Brown | 5 min |
|
Next Meeting |
|
|
|
Meeting Note Rotation |
|
| GIZ, Estonia, Dial, ITU |