October Updates on FRED progress

[Eduardo_Jezierski]

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13  - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we'll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

···

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

[bobj]

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

···

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13 - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we’ll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

[Matt_Berg]

Ed,

Thanks for the great update.

Assuming I have power today, I’ll be working cleaning up the API doc today while attempting to flesh out a bit the ideas we had on the call. Once I do that, it’ll be great if we could do another followup tech API call like the last one to make some final decisions re: the draft API release. If anyone is interested in joining me today just let me know. Will probably get started in the next hour or two.

Thanks,

Matt

···

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13  - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we'll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

–

[Paul_Biondich]

Ed, this is a great update… thanks.

As a quick note, PSA is an organization working with me to lay out the

“meta-presence” for the OpenHIE initiative, and as such… we asked them to

work on the high level website, and go into a small level of detail with

one of the tracks… given that FRED is the furthest track down the path at

this point, it made sense to prototype some simple ideas for FRED.

Clearly, the specific content and layout for FRED is up to you all… but I

think there’s an opportunity here to leverage their work, at least in the

extent that it links up and “flows” with the main web site. Please look at

their support as complementary to the ideas you all have for FRED.

I hope this makes sense,

-Paul

···

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13 - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we’ll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

[Eduardo_Jezierski]

Of course Bob. We’ve been granting R/W access to anyone requesting it.

I’ve also made the documents viewable by anyone just with the link to mitigate your concern. We are adding people that request access, but for those who don’t we still give comment permissions. Please make sure you are signed in and that your name gets displayed; sometimes it’s hard to have a conversation with what seems a bunch of ‘Anonymous123’ folks.

Cheers and looking forward to the progress in november.

~ ej

···

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:23:35 AM UTC-7, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski ed...@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13  - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we'll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

[bobj]

Of course Bob. We’ve been granting R/W access to anyone requesting it.

I’ve also made the documents viewable by anyone just with the link to mitigate your concern. We are adding people that request access, but for those who don’t we still give comment permissions.

Thanks Ed. This is the best default. Though it doesn’t actually seem to be the case yet. I can’t access the two TZ documents.

···

On 29 October 2012 21:50, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Please make sure you are signed in and that your name gets displayed; sometimes it’s hard to have a conversation with what seems a bunch of ‘Anonymous123’ folks.

Cheers and looking forward to the progress in november.

~ ej

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:23:35 AM UTC-7, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski ed...@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13  - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we'll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

–

[Eduardo_Jezierski]

Just gave you access to those too,
Note to all - I didn’t feel comfy opening those in particular to anyone as I don’t know what was Paul’s agreements are with MOH as of date; I think they are accepting the open community aspects of engaging; but I felt it was taking a liberty on stuff that is theirs based on an assumption. Maybe one of them if on the list; or Paul may want to comment.

This is a great example of the working process and artifacts for implementations - we should be clear up front what it implies to collect requirements and data dictionaries; how when they become visible to an international community, and make sure it is an opt-in for the country stakeholders. Eventually I hope the conversation starts being less about the technology and the mechanics of facility registries and more about the data meanings, purpose and implications.

Cheers to all

~ej

···

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:

On 29 October 2012 21:50, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Of course Bob. We’ve been granting R/W access to anyone requesting it.

I’ve also made the documents viewable by anyone just with the link to mitigate your concern. We are adding people that request access, but for those who don’t we still give comment permissions.

Thanks Ed. This is the best default. Though it doesn’t actually seem to be the case yet. I can’t access the two TZ documents.

Please make sure you are signed in and that your name gets displayed; sometimes it’s hard to have a conversation with what seems a bunch of ‘Anonymous123’ folks.

Cheers and looking forward to the progress in november.

~ ej

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:23:35 AM UTC-7, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski ed...@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13  - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we'll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

–

–

[pbiondich]

I might be missing something here, Ed. The Tanzanian docs are “their documents” and I’d make sure that we distinguish our color commentary from their ongoing process. We shouldn’t add user stories or modify their data specification unless they have an opportunity to weigh in.

I would think that the same applies for other countries as they bring their specifications and requirements to us.

Hope this helps,

-Paul

···

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Just gave you access to those too,
Note to all - I didn’t feel comfy opening those in particular to anyone as I don’t know what was Paul’s agreements are with MOH as of date; I think they are accepting the open community aspects of engaging; but I felt it was taking a liberty on stuff that is theirs based on an assumption. Maybe one of them if on the list; or Paul may want to comment.

This is a great example of the working process and artifacts for implementations - we should be clear up front what it implies to collect requirements and data dictionaries; how when they become visible to an international community, and make sure it is an opt-in for the country stakeholders. Eventually I hope the conversation starts being less about the technology and the mechanics of facility registries and more about the data meanings, purpose and implications.

Cheers to all

~ej

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:

On 29 October 2012 21:50, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Of course Bob. We’ve been granting R/W access to anyone requesting it.

I’ve also made the documents viewable by anyone just with the link to mitigate your concern. We are adding people that request access, but for those who don’t we still give comment permissions.

Thanks Ed. This is the best default. Though it doesn’t actually seem to be the case yet. I can’t access the two TZ documents.

Please make sure you are signed in and that your name gets displayed; sometimes it’s hard to have a conversation with what seems a bunch of ‘Anonymous123’ folks.

Cheers and looking forward to the progress in november.

~ ej

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:23:35 AM UTC-7, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski ed...@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13  - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we'll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

–

–

–

[Eduardo_Jezierski]

Thanks Paul, of course. That is why the documents are read only, and to a more limited audience.

What I was referring to, is to make sure - with Tz, Rw, and other implementations- that they both get educated about the benefits of sharing their requirements documents, for everyone to learn from (not to give opinions on). But it is “theirs” so we have to make sure it is an opt-in.

E.g. asking the question "If you engage in this process there will be a limited international team that will see your requirements and dictionaries in order to learn how to improve the products and interoperability. Also, if you agree, you can make this visible to other implementers of facility registries".

The whole community benefits from the transparency; but we have to make sure the permissions are explicitly granted by each country to share their requirements, that is all I am saying.

···

On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Paul Biondich pbiondic@regenstrief.org wrote:

I might be missing something here, Ed. The Tanzanian docs are “their documents” and I’d make sure that we distinguish our color commentary from their ongoing process. We shouldn’t add user stories or modify their data specification unless they have an opportunity to weigh in.

I would think that the same applies for other countries as they bring their specifications and requirements to us.

Hope this helps,

-Paul

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Just gave you access to those too,
Note to all - I didn’t feel comfy opening those in particular to anyone as I don’t know what was Paul’s agreements are with MOH as of date; I think they are accepting the open community aspects of engaging; but I felt it was taking a liberty on stuff that is theirs based on an assumption. Maybe one of them if on the list; or Paul may want to comment.

This is a great example of the working process and artifacts for implementations - we should be clear up front what it implies to collect requirements and data dictionaries; how when they become visible to an international community, and make sure it is an opt-in for the country stakeholders. Eventually I hope the conversation starts being less about the technology and the mechanics of facility registries and more about the data meanings, purpose and implications.

Cheers to all

~ej

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:

On 29 October 2012 21:50, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Of course Bob. We’ve been granting R/W access to anyone requesting it.

I’ve also made the documents viewable by anyone just with the link to mitigate your concern. We are adding people that request access, but for those who don’t we still give comment permissions.

Thanks Ed. This is the best default. Though it doesn’t actually seem to be the case yet. I can’t access the two TZ documents.

Please make sure you are signed in and that your name gets displayed; sometimes it’s hard to have a conversation with what seems a bunch of ‘Anonymous123’ folks.

Cheers and looking forward to the progress in november.

~ ej

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:23:35 AM UTC-7, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski ed...@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13  - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we'll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

–

–

–

–

[Matt_Berg]

I think the kenya doc is pubic already no?

···

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Thanks Paul, of course. That is why the documents are read only, and to a more limited audience.

What I was referring to, is to make sure - with Tz, Rw, and other implementations- that they both get educated about the benefits of sharing their requirements documents, for everyone to learn from (not to give opinions on). But it is “theirs” so we have to make sure it is an opt-in.

E.g. asking the question "If you engage in this process there will be a limited international team that will see your requirements and dictionaries in order to learn how to improve the products and interoperability. Also, if you agree, you can make this visible to other implementers of facility registries".

The whole community benefits from the transparency; but we have to make sure the permissions are explicitly granted by each country to share their requirements, that is all I am saying.

On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Paul Biondich pbiondic@regenstrief.org wrote:

I might be missing something here, Ed. The Tanzanian docs are “their documents” and I’d make sure that we distinguish our color commentary from their ongoing process. We shouldn’t add user stories or modify their data specification unless they have an opportunity to weigh in.

I would think that the same applies for other countries as they bring their specifications and requirements to us.

Hope this helps,

-Paul

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Just gave you access to those too,
Note to all - I didn’t feel comfy opening those in particular to anyone as I don’t know what was Paul’s agreements are with MOH as of date; I think they are accepting the open community aspects of engaging; but I felt it was taking a liberty on stuff that is theirs based on an assumption. Maybe one of them if on the list; or Paul may want to comment.

This is a great example of the working process and artifacts for implementations - we should be clear up front what it implies to collect requirements and data dictionaries; how when they become visible to an international community, and make sure it is an opt-in for the country stakeholders. Eventually I hope the conversation starts being less about the technology and the mechanics of facility registries and more about the data meanings, purpose and implications.

Cheers to all

~ej

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:

On 29 October 2012 21:50, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Of course Bob. We’ve been granting R/W access to anyone requesting it.

I’ve also made the documents viewable by anyone just with the link to mitigate your concern. We are adding people that request access, but for those who don’t we still give comment permissions.

Thanks Ed. This is the best default. Though it doesn’t actually seem to be the case yet. I can’t access the two TZ documents.

Please make sure you are signed in and that your name gets displayed; sometimes it’s hard to have a conversation with what seems a bunch of ‘Anonymous123’ folks.

Cheers and looking forward to the progress in november.

~ ej

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:23:35 AM UTC-7, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski ed...@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13  - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we'll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

–

–

–

–

–

[pbiondich]

Yeah, sounds great. In the case of TZ, we explicitly talked about this, and they clearly are willing/open to share the work as it evolves.

-Paul

···

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Thanks Paul, of course. That is why the documents are read only, and to a more limited audience.

What I was referring to, is to make sure - with Tz, Rw, and other implementations- that they both get educated about the benefits of sharing their requirements documents, for everyone to learn from (not to give opinions on). But it is “theirs” so we have to make sure it is an opt-in.

E.g. asking the question "If you engage in this process there will be a limited international team that will see your requirements and dictionaries in order to learn how to improve the products and interoperability. Also, if you agree, you can make this visible to other implementers of facility registries".

The whole community benefits from the transparency; but we have to make sure the permissions are explicitly granted by each country to share their requirements, that is all I am saying.

On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Paul Biondich pbiondic@regenstrief.org wrote:

I might be missing something here, Ed. The Tanzanian docs are “their documents” and I’d make sure that we distinguish our color commentary from their ongoing process. We shouldn’t add user stories or modify their data specification unless they have an opportunity to weigh in.

I would think that the same applies for other countries as they bring their specifications and requirements to us.

Hope this helps,

-Paul

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Just gave you access to those too,
Note to all - I didn’t feel comfy opening those in particular to anyone as I don’t know what was Paul’s agreements are with MOH as of date; I think they are accepting the open community aspects of engaging; but I felt it was taking a liberty on stuff that is theirs based on an assumption. Maybe one of them if on the list; or Paul may want to comment.

This is a great example of the working process and artifacts for implementations - we should be clear up front what it implies to collect requirements and data dictionaries; how when they become visible to an international community, and make sure it is an opt-in for the country stakeholders. Eventually I hope the conversation starts being less about the technology and the mechanics of facility registries and more about the data meanings, purpose and implications.

Cheers to all

~ej

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:

On 29 October 2012 21:50, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Of course Bob. We’ve been granting R/W access to anyone requesting it.

I’ve also made the documents viewable by anyone just with the link to mitigate your concern. We are adding people that request access, but for those who don’t we still give comment permissions.

Thanks Ed. This is the best default. Though it doesn’t actually seem to be the case yet. I can’t access the two TZ documents.

Please make sure you are signed in and that your name gets displayed; sometimes it’s hard to have a conversation with what seems a bunch of ‘Anonymous123’ folks.

Cheers and looking forward to the progress in november.

~ ej

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:23:35 AM UTC-7, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski ed...@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13  - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we'll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

–

–

–

–

–

[bobj]

which is the kenya doc?

···

On 30 October 2012 17:27, Matt Berg mlberg@gmail.com wrote:

I think the kenya doc is pubic already no?

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Thanks Paul, of course. That is why the documents are read only, and to a more limited audience.

What I was referring to, is to make sure - with Tz, Rw, and other implementations- that they both get educated about the benefits of sharing their requirements documents, for everyone to learn from (not to give opinions on). But it is “theirs” so we have to make sure it is an opt-in.

E.g. asking the question "If you engage in this process there will be a limited international team that will see your requirements and dictionaries in order to learn how to improve the products and interoperability. Also, if you agree, you can make this visible to other implementers of facility registries".

The whole community benefits from the transparency; but we have to make sure the permissions are explicitly granted by each country to share their requirements, that is all I am saying.

On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Paul Biondich pbiondic@regenstrief.org wrote:

I might be missing something here, Ed. The Tanzanian docs are “their documents” and I’d make sure that we distinguish our color commentary from their ongoing process. We shouldn’t add user stories or modify their data specification unless they have an opportunity to weigh in.

I would think that the same applies for other countries as they bring their specifications and requirements to us.

Hope this helps,

-Paul

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Just gave you access to those too,
Note to all - I didn’t feel comfy opening those in particular to anyone as I don’t know what was Paul’s agreements are with MOH as of date; I think they are accepting the open community aspects of engaging; but I felt it was taking a liberty on stuff that is theirs based on an assumption. Maybe one of them if on the list; or Paul may want to comment.

This is a great example of the working process and artifacts for implementations - we should be clear up front what it implies to collect requirements and data dictionaries; how when they become visible to an international community, and make sure it is an opt-in for the country stakeholders. Eventually I hope the conversation starts being less about the technology and the mechanics of facility registries and more about the data meanings, purpose and implications.

Cheers to all

~ej

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:

On 29 October 2012 21:50, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Of course Bob. We’ve been granting R/W access to anyone requesting it.

I’ve also made the documents viewable by anyone just with the link to mitigate your concern. We are adding people that request access, but for those who don’t we still give comment permissions.

Thanks Ed. This is the best default. Though it doesn’t actually seem to be the case yet. I can’t access the two TZ documents.

Please make sure you are signed in and that your name gets displayed; sometimes it’s hard to have a conversation with what seems a bunch of ‘Anonymous123’ folks.

Cheers and looking forward to the progress in november.

~ ej

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:23:35 AM UTC-7, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski ed...@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13  - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we'll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

[Kelly_Keisling_NH]

The Kenya doc is the the Kenya MFL Implementation Guide Draft. It is available on the technical section of the FRED wiki under Source Materials- Use Cases/User Stories at https://confluence.dimagi.com/display/facilityregistry/Technical+Materials.

Kelly

···

---

From: facility-registry@googlegroups.com [facility-registry@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Bob Jolliffe [bobjolliffe@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:48 PM
To: facility-registry@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: October Updates on FRED progress

which is the kenya doc?

On 30 October 2012 17:27, Matt Berg mlberg@gmail.com wrote:

I think the kenya doc is pubic already no?

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Eduardo Jezierski > edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Thanks Paul, of course. That is why the documents are read only, and to a more limited audience.

What I was referring to, is to make sure - with Tz, Rw, and other implementations- that they both get educated about the benefits of sharing their requirements documents, for everyone to learn from (not to give opinions on). But it is “theirs” so we have
to make sure it is an opt-in.

E.g. asking the question * “If you engage in this process there will be a limited international team that will see your requirements and dictionaries in order to learn how to improve the products and interoperability. Also, if you agree, you can make
this visible to other implementers of facility registries*”.

The whole community benefits from the transparency; but we have to make sure the permissions are explicitly granted by each country to share their requirements, that is all I am saying.

On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Paul Biondich pbiondic@regenstrief.org wrote:

I might be missing something here, Ed. The Tanzanian docs are “their documents” and I’d make sure that we distinguish our color commentary from their ongoing process. We shouldn’t add user stories or modify their data specification
unless they have an opportunity to weigh in.

I would think that the same applies for other countries as they bring their specifications and requirements to us.

Hope this helps,

-Paul

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Eduardo Jezierski > > > edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Just gave you access to those too,
Note to all - I didn’t feel comfy opening those in particular to anyone as I don’t know what was Paul’s agreements are with MOH as of date; I think they are accepting the open community aspects of engaging; but I felt it was taking a liberty on stuff
that is theirs based on an assumption. Maybe one of them if on the list; or Paul may want to comment.

This is a great example of the working process and artifacts for implementations - we should be clear up front what it implies to collect requirements and data dictionaries; how when they become visible to an international community, and make sure it is
an opt-in for the country stakeholders. Eventually I hope the conversation starts being less about the technology and the mechanics of facility registries and more about the data meanings, purpose and implications.

Cheers to all

~ej

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:

On 29 October 2012 21:50, Eduardo Jezierski > > > > > edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Of course Bob. We’ve been granting R/W access to anyone requesting it.

I’ve also made the documents viewable by anyone just with the link to mitigate your concern. We are adding people that request access, but for those who don’t we still give comment permissions.

Thanks Ed. This is the best default. Though it doesn’t actually seem to be the case yet. I can’t access the two TZ documents.

Please make sure you are signed in and that your name gets displayed; sometimes it’s hard to have a conversation with what seems a bunch of ‘Anonymous123’ folks.

Cheers and looking forward to the progress in november.

~ ej

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:23:35 AM UTC-7, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents
which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski > > > > > > > ed...@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note
we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13 - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds
the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make
sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are
building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international
tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process
of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you
a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API.
Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception,
more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked
well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we’ll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience
as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves
and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into
some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the
ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

[Matt_Berg]

On the wiki under source documents

···

On Oct 30, 2012 1:48 PM, “Bob Jolliffe” bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:

which is the kenya doc?

On 30 October 2012 17:27, Matt Berg mlberg@gmail.com wrote:

I think the kenya doc is pubic already no?

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Thanks Paul, of course. That is why the documents are read only, and to a more limited audience.

What I was referring to, is to make sure - with Tz, Rw, and other implementations- that they both get educated about the benefits of sharing their requirements documents, for everyone to learn from (not to give opinions on). But it is “theirs” so we have to make sure it is an opt-in.

E.g. asking the question "If you engage in this process there will be a limited international team that will see your requirements and dictionaries in order to learn how to improve the products and interoperability. Also, if you agree, you can make this visible to other implementers of facility registries".

The whole community benefits from the transparency; but we have to make sure the permissions are explicitly granted by each country to share their requirements, that is all I am saying.

On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Paul Biondich pbiondic@regenstrief.org wrote:

I might be missing something here, Ed. The Tanzanian docs are “their documents” and I’d make sure that we distinguish our color commentary from their ongoing process. We shouldn’t add user stories or modify their data specification unless they have an opportunity to weigh in.

I would think that the same applies for other countries as they bring their specifications and requirements to us.

Hope this helps,

-Paul

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Just gave you access to those too,
Note to all - I didn’t feel comfy opening those in particular to anyone as I don’t know what was Paul’s agreements are with MOH as of date; I think they are accepting the open community aspects of engaging; but I felt it was taking a liberty on stuff that is theirs based on an assumption. Maybe one of them if on the list; or Paul may want to comment.

This is a great example of the working process and artifacts for implementations - we should be clear up front what it implies to collect requirements and data dictionaries; how when they become visible to an international community, and make sure it is an opt-in for the country stakeholders. Eventually I hope the conversation starts being less about the technology and the mechanics of facility registries and more about the data meanings, purpose and implications.

Cheers to all

~ej

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:

On 29 October 2012 21:50, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Of course Bob. We’ve been granting R/W access to anyone requesting it.

I’ve also made the documents viewable by anyone just with the link to mitigate your concern. We are adding people that request access, but for those who don’t we still give comment permissions.

Thanks Ed. This is the best default. Though it doesn’t actually seem to be the case yet. I can’t access the two TZ documents.

Please make sure you are signed in and that your name gets displayed; sometimes it’s hard to have a conversation with what seems a bunch of ‘Anonymous123’ folks.

Cheers and looking forward to the progress in november.

~ ej

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:23:35 AM UTC-7, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski ed...@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13  - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API. Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception, more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we'll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

[bobj]

Thanks.

···

On 30 October 2012 18:09, Kelly Keisling (NH) kelly.keisling@nethope.org wrote:

The Kenya doc is the the Kenya MFL Implementation Guide Draft. It is available on the technical section of the FRED wiki under Source Materials- Use Cases/User Stories at https://confluence.dimagi.com/display/facilityregistry/Technical+Materials.

Kelly

---

From: facility-registry@googlegroups.com [facility-registry@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Bob Jolliffe [bobjolliffe@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:48 PM
To: facility-registry@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: October Updates on FRED progress

which is the kenya doc?

On 30 October 2012 17:27, Matt Berg mlberg@gmail.com wrote:

I think the kenya doc is pubic already no?

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Eduardo Jezierski > > edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Thanks Paul, of course. That is why the documents are read only, and to a more limited audience.

What I was referring to, is to make sure - with Tz, Rw, and other implementations- that they both get educated about the benefits of sharing their requirements documents, for everyone to learn from (not to give opinions on). But it is “theirs” so we have
to make sure it is an opt-in.

E.g. asking the question * “If you engage in this process there will be a limited international team that will see your requirements and dictionaries in order to learn how to improve the products and interoperability. Also, if you agree, you can make
this visible to other implementers of facility registries*”.

The whole community benefits from the transparency; but we have to make sure the permissions are explicitly granted by each country to share their requirements, that is all I am saying.

On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Paul Biondich pbiondic@regenstrief.org wrote:

I might be missing something here, Ed. The Tanzanian docs are “their documents” and I’d make sure that we distinguish our color commentary from their ongoing process. We shouldn’t add user stories or modify their data specification
unless they have an opportunity to weigh in.

I would think that the same applies for other countries as they bring their specifications and requirements to us.

Hope this helps,

-Paul

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Eduardo Jezierski > > > > edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Just gave you access to those too,
Note to all - I didn’t feel comfy opening those in particular to anyone as I don’t know what was Paul’s agreements are with MOH as of date; I think they are accepting the open community aspects of engaging; but I felt it was taking a liberty on stuff
that is theirs based on an assumption. Maybe one of them if on the list; or Paul may want to comment.

This is a great example of the working process and artifacts for implementations - we should be clear up front what it implies to collect requirements and data dictionaries; how when they become visible to an international community, and make sure it is
an opt-in for the country stakeholders. Eventually I hope the conversation starts being less about the technology and the mechanics of facility registries and more about the data meanings, purpose and implications.

Cheers to all

~ej

On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:55 AM, Bob Jolliffe bobjolliffe@gmail.com wrote:

On 29 October 2012 21:50, Eduardo Jezierski > > > > > > edjez@instedd.org wrote:

Of course Bob. We’ve been granting R/W access to anyone requesting it.

I’ve also made the documents viewable by anyone just with the link to mitigate your concern. We are adding people that request access, but for those who don’t we still give comment permissions.

Thanks Ed. This is the best default. Though it doesn’t actually seem to be the case yet. I can’t access the two TZ documents.

Please make sure you are signed in and that your name gets displayed; sometimes it’s hard to have a conversation with what seems a bunch of ‘Anonymous123’ folks.

Cheers and looking forward to the progress in november.

~ ej

On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:23:35 AM UTC-7, Bob Jolliffe wrote:

Hi Ed

Thanks for pulling all these strands together. I have been struggling to keep up these past two weeks with all the discussion so having a summary is useful.

I didn’t manage to make the management call but am just finishing listening to the recording. I am quite concerned that things are in danger of moving in directions which are not very transparent. Can you please try and ensure that all of the these documents
which are referred to below are actually available to all list members? Otherwise I (and I imagine others) really can’t comment and I worry there might be quite a bit to comment on.

Bob

On 26 October 2012 22:47, Eduardo Jezierski > > > > > > > > ed...@instedd.org wrote:

[this is a cross-post to the devs and general project list]

Hi all -
As you know we are working on many fronts in the FRED project.

This is an update to let you know what are some of the effort areas that have been going on in October, and the progress made with them. I think we all owe a big thanks to the folks in all the participating organizations for moving things forward. Note
we link to some working google docs below; ask for access if you want it. Everything is work in progress.

Overall project charter

The first one has been establishing the goals and roadmap for '13 - writing up a draft and starting to sign up partners for it. That concept sheet stays true to the original intent of FRED I believe, but adds
the importance of supporting country implementation as a goal of the project; and attempts to provide clear metrics for what we are aiming for as a collective by end of next year. Reality is always more amazing than planned, but having initial bearings make
sure we all know what we are going into. Everyone in this group has both thought leadership and implementation responsibilities, so those initial directions will be reviewed with the whole group in time. Feel free to chime in the early drafts here:

Mission, Strategies, Objectives, Risks, Example Activities and Deliverables

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1D2a55wca-C_mkCy6GAxQ6pENLy9Z5S66QEfh78jpSZI/edit#

Communications

As we start getting more exposure (e.g. OSCON, country implementations, PEPFAR and other funders meeting each other etc) it is important to have a simple explanation of what this effort is all about for the world.

We have started working on a communications frame whose content will be used for an online landing page and brochure-like material. This will then be part of a larger OHIE communication effort, but it is important to make sure people understand these are
building blocks for their health information system - can be used separately but are ‘better together’. Our main audience is implementing countries - which breaks down into an ecosystem of MOH officials, MOH data managers, local tech support groups, international
tech-savy NGOs and funders. We ned to create content that is simple & coherent for the areas where these folks’ interests intersect; and specialized pages to address the information needs that are not shared (e.g. some folks will want to see what is the process
of implementing this - others will want to see API references).

Regenstrief has brought in a group called PSA to work on supporting this effort; we need to coordinate a bit more; but I’m sure we’ll converge. In the meantime please chime in here if you are interested - this is a very early draft! but it will give you
a sense of how we are thinking about it.

Audiences, Goals, Content Areas - very early draft

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1dB4_pCUmNX6U6m2W1MLStmn1h4yMRxnxnxLTPbmLmaA/edit

API design

I was very happy this week as we had a great technical call, in preparation to close up a v1.0 soon. We organized some of the pending discussion items/proposals into a backlog, and we are taking votes in making things in or out of scope of the v1.0 API.
Next call we will start the voting process to ‘accept’ spec elements into the 0.9 draft; to make sure we all know what the ‘latest good’ from which to do proposals. Tightening our workflow will not only make these calls more efficient, and in my perception,
more enjoyable; but also will create an environment where additional folks can engage as they want.

It is really nice to see a clear and prioritized list of tech items to be discussed; and folks from Columbia, HISP, Dimagi and InSTEDD taking votes by raising hands on a Google Hangout. BTW, this hangout worked
well and I suggest we move onto that as a platform for the future calls; if there are no concerns we’ll update the invite with Kelly.

https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1_tVmFOO5uwR_pa-QqIz8m0ero77oqdF3a1eUOFDr1x8/edit

Tanzania Implementation

We have reviewed the user stories and created a prototype configuration of their data dictionary in the staging cloud instance of resource map, as a ‘sandbox’ from which to be able to get feedback from them. It is important to learn from the Tz experience
as we are trying to find the optimal materials for implementing countries to assess, implement and evaluate HIE components efficiently; and we will be distilling approaches that can be used by other OHIE components. We also don’t want to get ahead of ourselves
and over-engineer an engagement into a waterfall process that would be unnecessarily error-prone and lengthy for countries. The theme is to advance pragmatically, simultaneously applying and harvesting proven practices that can help the next cycle and country.

General Reqs: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/1CV_EMY48PngGiozFv_XzM3S3qAuP1OMywvPT84WsCA4/edit

Basic Data Spec: https://docs.google.com/a/instedd.org/document/d/18oeJi-KAWKHSzTzlVxXriZnjKq52IUXleIiiG1aTZ7s/edit

Overall project management

As a note, there is much budget & proposal work going on for the continuation of Rwanda’s reference implementation work under RHEA, and if you see me oscillate in availability in the public coordination of this these weeks it’s because I’m pulled into
some of that admin work. It is important our funders understand the value of this activity, that they support it well so it’s set up for success, and also that they appreciate how much has been achieved so far, relative to the rest of whats going on in the
ehealth world. I still think we can do much better but small & real steps will get us there.

Thanks all sorry for the long email but these are good efforts by a lot of people and it’s nice to see them converging.

For November, our activities will be:

• Continuing work on the overall charter; and communications efforts

• Closing on API 1.0 specs, and start any coding required

• Dimagi, HISP and Columbia will start describing scenarios for interaction with FR to be implemented for demonstrations in the upcoming months

• Getting to the next step for Tanzania evaluation; circling back to them with the configuration and getting their feedback

Thanks all for your contributions and look forward to the next set of activities!

---

Eduardo Jezierski, InSTEDD, CTO

skype: eduardojezierski

twitter: @edjez

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–