A few weeks ago, we had a good conversation on a Developers Forum about the Platform Technical Road Map (Objective 1.1). If you haven’t seen already, you can review notes on the wiki page for the 2016-08-18 Developers Forum.
During the call, I asked a series of questions, some of which were provocative to stimulate conversation. I’m bringing these questions into Talk and look forward to your thoughts & feedback.
How should the platform road map be prioritized?
Here’s feedback from the dev forum:
- 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 threads…
Who should constitute the OpenMRS Platform architecture Review Board?
Here’s feedback from the dev forum:
- 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
Do you have additional thoughts/ideas/feedback on the questions above? Please feel free to join the discussion here.