LT review of Distributions Program

Hi Leadership team,

@janflowers and I have been working on the Distributions Program (i.e. Strategic Objective 3), and we have some drafts that we’re near ready to announce.

We’d like to spend 5 minutes on this week’s leadership call informing you all what we’ve got. We’re happy to discuss more at length, if there’s extra time. (ping @jthomas)

Mainly we will point out the existence of:

@jeffneiman @terry wanted to make sure you saw this for the call this week.

Thanks @jthomas! Is @jeffneiman or @terry going to be available this week since they are both travelling?

@janflowers I know nothing about their travel. @jeffneiman has been working with @terry on agendas and support for the LT, I have stepped back from this a bit. Hopefully they can respond to this.

I am going to be available but I have not seen a draft agenda yet. Jamie is there anyway that you could draw one up? Jan if I don’t get on for some reason could you chair the call?

Topics so far

501c3 update Infrastructure and response time Outreach to other organizations and ways forward This topic.


I can chair, if need be. (But, since I have things to say about two topics, I’d welcome someone else to chair and be timekeeper!)

@jthomas, to check, are you saying that when we want to add something to the Leadership Call schedule, we should copy @jeffneiman instead of you?

Thx. I’ll be driving across the state at that time so I’ll likely join the call, but couldn’t lead it.


I could chair. Sometimes I enjoy bossing around my bosses :wink:


Hey all! Sorry for the delay on my part… packing up all your stuff to move back to the states and saying goodbye to amazing friends took my attention these past few days.

I’m posting the drafted agenda to Talk so we can continue to add to it!

@darius yes I think this would be the best process going forward.

Jeff has been coordinating the agenda for the past few weeks. Potential agenda items should be sent to him. Thanks


A Distribution is defined as a particular configuration of the OpenMRS Platform, OpenMRS modules, and (optionally) other integrated applications, that can be installed and upgraded as a single unit.

I expected content (not just code) would often be key part of distributions (e.g., concepts, forms, metadata, etc.) – i.e., “… a particular configuration of the OpenMRS Platform, OpenMRS modules, content (concepts, forms, reports, metadata, etc.), and (optionally) other integrated applications,…”

Also, this doesn’t mention intended scope of usage. Doesn’t a “distribution” imply that it be used by more than one organization? If an organization packages up OpenMRS for their own use (e.g., deploying to several of their sites) with no intention that it be used by other organizations, is that a distribution?


Could we go a step further with aims to help identify, encourage, and facilitate, where possible, areas of potential collaboration?

Additional Distributions

Uganda EMR Does Nigeria have one or more?

I really like what you all did.

I have no suggestions, but would hold out that we have more potential examples of distributions then are listed.

The real interesting practical question is whether we plan to add new ones based upon their request, or whether we will add based upon our review?

Good point, I’ll add that.

I feel like we cover it in the Types Of Distributions section. Particularly, an “Implementation-Specific Distribution” is a thing, and if you meet all the technical criteria we’re not going to tell you that you’re not a distro. But we won’t include these in the prominent table, only in a secondary list, because we don’t want new implementers to be distracted by them. (They’re still valuable to show so devs can know about them.)

We have reached out to the Philippines, and HISP India, and I’m also chatting with @mseaton about whether to include the MDR-TB module. (And I just realized that Uganda slipped through the cracks somehow.) Do you have more suggestions?

My initial plan was to screen them, but Jan convinced me that we can start out by being welcoming and letting people just add themselves to the wiki page, rather than making ourselves a bottleneck, and we can revisit this if there’s any abuse.

Also, if in the future we choose to do “certification,” we’d definitely need to review first.

OpenSRP and mUzima are the two that come to mind.

i like the idea of letting people/distros self report. As we move to some kind of ‘certification’, having the knowledge of what people have developed will be helpful. Thanks to @darius and @janflowers and all the distress for making this happen!