A fair point, @terry, that having a documented roadmap is helpful, if not necessary, in securing funding. (Hopefully it’s enough that we can show a documented roadmap driven by implementation needs and the contents of the roadmap won’t have to be modified to fit the funding streams, but that’s another issue.)
IMO then it’s important at these prioritization meetings to acknowledge that increased funding likely required to make all this happen, and that a key motivation for the roadmap is to aid in getting funding. I wouldn’t want implementers to invest time in a new roadmap process and then feel doubly frustrated six months after that when the items on the six month roadmap still aren’t complete.
I think the current limited team of “core” OpenMRS devs has enough work just keeping the ship afloat, with tasks such as merging and reviewing pull requests, making sure the build pipeline stays up and running, handling code debt (the 2.0 API refactoring), moving already-established priorities forward (like OCL) and community involvement (answering questions on Talk, GSoC) that there really is very limited time for implementation-driven features unless resources are added or some of these other above items are de-prioritized.
Take care, Mark