20130423 - Meeting minutes, Thuesday , April 23r, 2013
OpenNCP Weekly Sprint Meeting
23 APR 10:00 to 11:00 CET
Work RoadMap - epSOS 2 Services
1º Sprint: 28Jan > 8 Fev (2 weeks) > Completed
2º Sprint: 11Fev > 22Fev (2 weeks) > Completed
3º Sprint: 25Fev > 8Mar (2 weeks) > Completed
4º Sprint: 11Mar > 22Mar (2 weeks) (<- both weeks, or perhaps just the last week could be the code freeze?) Completed
Release date: 25March (Monday) > OpenNCP 2.0.0 > Postpone
5º Sprint: 25Mar > 8Apr (2 weeks) Completed
Release date: 10Apr (Thursday) > OpenNCP 1.1.2 > in Progress (Release Notes)
Release date: 11Apr (Thursday) > OpenNCP 2.0.0 > Postpone
6º Sprint: 22Apr> 3May (2 weeks) in progress
Release date: 8May (Thursday) > OpenNCP 1.1.3
7º Sprint: 3May> 17May (2 weeks)
Release date: 22 May (Thursday) > OpenNCP 2.0.0
Agenda
1. Istanbul PAT - Lessons learned
2. OpenNCP 1.1.3 - Planning
3. OpenNCP 2.0.0 - Roadmap
Location
Skype (sirLicman) + EtherPad (http://openetherpad.org/UR5ojXsFzY)
Participants:
Aarne Roosi <Aarne.Roosi@affecto.com>,
Alexander Berler <a.berler@gnomon.com.gr>,
Anders Nyström <Anders.Nystrom@apotekensservice.se>,
Arnaud Gaudinat <arnaud.gaudinat@hesge.ch>,
Fredrik Dahlman <fredrik.dahlman@cag.se>,
Gareth Woodham <Gareth.Woodham@apotekensservice.se>,
Gergely Heja <heja.gergely@eski.hu>,
Giorgio Cangioli <giorgio.cangioli@gmail.com>
Ivo Pinheiro <ivo.pinheiro@iuz.pt>,
Konstantin Hypponen <konstantin.hypponen@kela.fi>,
Kostas Karkaletsis <k.karkaletsis@gnomon.com.gr>,
Licinio Mano <licinio.mano@iuz.pt>,
Marcello Melgara <Marcello.Melgara@cnt.lispa.it>,
Mate Beštek <mate.bestek@gmail.com>
Marcelo Fonseca <marcelo.fonseca@iuz.pt>,
Mika Myllyvirta <mika.myllyvirta@kela.fi>,
Mindaugas Ajauskas <mindaugas.ajauskas@lispa.it>,
Norbert Repas <norbert.repas@elga.gv.at>,
Patrick Ruch <Patrick.Ruch@unige.ch>,
Tomaz Cebular <Tomaz.Cebular@ivz-rs.si>
Steen Manniche <STMA@ssi.dk>,
Stefan Gustafsson <stefan.gustafsson@callistaenterprise.se>,
Stéphane Spahni <stephane.spahni@hcuge.ch>,
MEETING NOTES
1. Istanbul PAT - Lessons learned
1.1 What went WELL?
-- [MF] A lot of PN were using OpenNCP (different scenario from Bern PAT)
-- [KT] Feedback from changing PN: OpenNCP is much more easy to install, deploy and compliance > less gazelle problems;
-- [MF] Feedback from supported PN: great help;
-- [MB] Installing and complete the pre-PAT test, was really faster then with other alternative solutions;
-- [MM] OpenNCP: Learn from the past, work together with real challenge in hands > and countries had no experience > and now Countries are accomplishing to reach epSOS goals;
1.2 What went WRONG?
-- [MF] A briefing would be really helpful in order to clarify the role of each Supportive Nations (like PT and FI);
--- [MF] In order to unblock some support request, make communication easier - through briefings and PN role clarifications;
-- [MF] Preparing the ground for PAT, should be improved with "OpenNCP and PAT Process preparing sessions" before the PAT itself;
--- [KT] We lost at least one day trying to understand what everyone was doing, only in the next days we could really help;
-- [KT] Gazelle validators is really improving > "Gazelle is now commanding"
--- [KT] There is too much attention in focus "in order for please Gazelle" instead of focus in "documents structure and content";
-- [MB] We didn't understood from beginning the role of each Nation, that leads to loose some time;
-- [KK] There was not so clear the status from the tests in the Gazelle System. Gazelle catches some of the errors. Some tests needed human eyes to be validated. So there are several instances that gazelle passed tests not passed in the end since they had some problems that gazelle not catches.
Too much time to upload the logs in gazelle. We have to find a way this to be automated. The 80% of the time was for this purpose
-- [MF] There should be a local instance (in PAT) of CI environment to speed up the publishing of new artefacts;
--- [MF] Also, there should be an optimized and well-known (by all) workflow for discovering / announcing issues, solving them, publish artifacts and notify the PNs (during PAT) - can be presented in briefing or prepraring sessions;
-- [MF] We should invest more time on developing the integration of OpenNCP with Gazelle Systems, namely to automate the process of capture and validate the messages (during a PAT/PPT session) and in the CI environment - to test the software;
-- [MM] Gazelle is build on Specification, specification are frozen but ambiguous, and for that the implementation is always evolving, not stable or consolidated;
--- [MM] Don't blame, sustain a comment for stabilizing and consolidating Gazelle;
--- [MM] Quality of documents needs to be checked: How? What strategies may the epSOS adopt for this?
1.3 Action Needed?
- [KT] Improve the installation manual from the OpenNCP - every new PN (in PAT) should provide feedback to improve the manual (by leaving comments in the manual or creating issues under "OpenNCP project");
--[MB] Slovenia needs to finish some Gazelle tests (country A scenarios), also VPN has not been established yet
--[MB] Croatia also has to finish some Gazelle tests, also VPN has not been established yet.
--[MB] A lot of time is needed to enter all the data needed by the Gazelle. I fully support the idea of automatisation of this.
--[MF] Plan and implement the integration of CI environment with Gazelle services and the automation of the messages validation process;
1.4 Going to Operation - MVC issues
- [MM] Frozen MVC 1.7, countries will need to move to MVC 1.8
-- [MM] Croatia and Portugal, did not close the MVC 1.7 ;
--- [MM] CareCom will bring the in progress translations to the MVC1.8;
---- [MM] Theorectical - this is a CG0/1 for
-- [MM] Do you as a PN confirm that you have approved all the translations in the MVC 1.7?
2. OpenNCP 1.1.3 - Planning
2.1 Road to 1.1.3 - Improvements and Bug Fixes
PT-94, PT-276, PT-278 (might be a duplicate of PT-94), PT-274 (ensure that the fix has been pushed).
- CRITICAL and BLOCKING:
-- https://openncp.atlassian.net/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=2
2.2 Road to 1.1.3 - Developments
-- No new DEVELOPMENTS
2.3. Road to 1.1.3 - QA Stage (after code freeze)
AUTOMATE QA (Norber & Marcelo Fonseca have started work on this, there is work to do that should be added for the next sprint)
- Integration of CI Environment With Gazelle Services
-- Future QA tools (automated): https://openncp.atlassian.net/wiki/x/MIDh
2.4. Road to 1.1.3 - Release Date (Plan)
OpenNCP 1.1.3 - 8 May
3. OpenNCP 2.0.0 - Roadmap
3.1 OpenNCP 2.0.0 -Release Date 22 May (Plan)
-- Branches Merging (1.1.3. and 2.0.0)
-- PAC Demonstration
3.2 HCER Development (depending Gnomon availability)
--- Building the interface is in progress, but lacks some document specification;
--- [karkaletsiskostas] It has to be filled the https://openncp.atlassian.net/wiki/display/ODC/HCER+Service+for+Patient+Summary+Extension
--- [Konstantin Hyppönen] Exactly. Kostas, I think the Header part is more or less complete. And for the body part maybe we should concentrate on adding a new diagnosis to the previously fetched patient summary. This will be perhaps enough for testing.
--- [karkaletsiskostas] So we have to add only one section of patient summary and this will be diagnosis?
--- [Konstantin Hyppönen] This is my understanding, but once again maybe Giorgio/semantic team could give a confirmation for this
NEXT Steps
- [To Do - Norbert] Discuss PoC > We need to discuss (or we need to clarify) some organisational discrepancies between D3.C.1 Appendix-B - Proof of Concept Testing Strategy Details (Test Levels & Phases) & First draft of an OSS road map, regarding an improved test strategy for the released components.
- [To Do - Kostas-Konstantin] when HCER could be available 2.0.0 or 2.0.1?
- [To Do - Licinio] Schedule 'next' meeting - proposed date Apr 26, 2013, 10h00 CET or Apr 30, 2013, 15h00 CET
Dear all, good morning
Regarding yesterday meeting, I've volunteered to prepare an email with the OpenNCP Team feedback about the Istanbul PAT.
About that, follows my email proposal for which I appreciate your comments directly in the page (no need for extra email).
So here it goes:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear epSOS
The OpenNCP team appreciates the opportunity that has been given for being present in the Istanbul PAT, naming all the epSOS project investment for make this happen.
We strongly believe that the presence of the OpenNCP Team in the Istanbul PAT has been an opportunity well used.
Follows some feedback about the positive signs and improvement points that, in our opinion, should be visible for evaluation and continuous improvement.
A. Positive Signs
A.1 The number of OpenNCP adopters were higher then expected. All the epSOS PN participating in the PAT were using the OpenNCP 1.1.2.
A.2 The feedback gathered near the PN about the OpenNCP has been quite positive regarding: obtaining the SW artefacts, installing (manual), deploying and testing; all those steps have been accomplished (by all PN) and with surprisingly bigger success then with previous epSOS common components.
A.3 The presence of an OpenNCP Supportive team has been a great help for PN, namely by the accelerator factor it provided to other PN (consolidated know-how and experience in the PAT activities) and by the ability to trace SW issues and even solving them in the needed moment.
A.4 The PAT and the number of PN using the OpenNCP provided the right opportunity to follow closely the OpenNCP 1.1.2 stability and consistency (services, conformance and compliance). With the PAT period and activities, there is a bigger certain that the OpenNCP 1.1.2 and it’s next version are stable and ready for Operation environment.
B. Improvement Points
B.1 A briefing (at the beginning of the PAT - on site) to all epSOS participant PN would be really helpful to clarify the role of each Supportive Nation (like PT and FI), in order to unblock some support request and make communication fluent;
B.2 There should be an optimized and well-known (by all) workflow for discovering / announcing issues in the OpenNCP, solving them, publish artefacts and notify the PNs (during PAT) - can be presented in briefing or preparing sessions;
B.3 Gazelle validators are really improving since the beginning of epSOS and now they are “in command”. Nonetheless the OpenNCP team believes that the effort devoted to solving all gazelle pointed issues, sometimes don’t introduce high value to the software and sometimes the pointed issues are not real issues but some validators inconsistencies.
B.4 Apart from the value added by Gazelle Validators, the OpenNCP believes that more effort (automated test, resources, stages) should be devoted to epSOS Document scrutiny and QA, in order to guarantee higher Quality in the main information token that epSOS provide to end users.
B.5 There should be a local instance (in PAT) of the OpenNCP CI environment to speed up the publishing of new artefacts;
B.6 The OpenNCP community should invest more time on developing the integration of OpenNCP with Gazelle Systems, namely to automate the process of capture and validate the messages (during a PAT/PPT session) and in the CI environment - to test the software;
Hopping that this feedback could drive us all towards a more sustainable test environment, the OpenNCP community is available for keep contributing to the proposed improvements.
Having all that in mind, once again we appreciate the opportunity that has been given and all the investment for make this happen.
Best regards
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++