Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of FoodRequests
- 01/31/10 04:09:24 (13 years ago)
v1 v2 15 15 * They have access to 8cm imagery (as do we through the world bank flyovers - something we can configure with openlayers) that they want to have as an overlay. 16 16 * They have developers who can assist with the mapping components. 17 * I think it is the simple RMS that they are after here... as a front end to collect data... fulfil lrequests, and report on status. 17 * I think it is the simple RMS that they are after here... as a front end to collect data... fulfil requests, and report on status. 18 18 * Requests could be "downloaded" and "validated", and the status manually updated. 19 19 * They have looked at our Haiti.SF.org site and say that all the elements and functionality is there. … … 26 26 [[BR]] 27 27 '''Deployment Vision and Questions for Developers (from Mark):''' 28 * A separate instance of SahanaPy stood up - hosted by us or them? Or do we build on the same prod data? 28 * A separate instance of !SahanaPy stood up - hosted by us or them? Or do we build on the same prod data? 29 * Fran would love to see this running within same Dev->UAT->Prod instance. We can provide separate security roles, if required. 29 30 * We need to budget operating and support costs in near-term and long term. 30 31 * All code via trunk... no forks.... no conflicts with HMS, R-HMS, or RMS. 31 * Is there a need to have a developer in Rome to coordinate on data structures and requirements with WFP? 32 * Fran: RMS will be merged with Trunk in a slightly more generic form...ideally the WFP customidsations can fit within that, otherwise we /can/ simply create a new module...although I'm reluctant 33 * Is there a need to have a developer in Rome to coordinate on data structures and requirements with WFP? 34 * Fran: Whilst that could be nice, having good remote access should work for this part too...the personal touch is mostly useful to get agrrement on the higher-level aspects...if this is in-place then the more detailed parts don't require as much F2F 32 35 * We only do this if funded. We can't do a project for WFP without dedicated assets that are paid to deliver on the project. 36 33 37 * Those who will be paid to work this out will have to commit to a time schedule and availability that makes sense for the project. All personal and professional time commitments must be noted. 34 38 * Long term support - the change requirements sound minimal - so standing up a system within a week should not be difficult if we have dedicated assets to do this. Need thoughts for proposing long-term support plan: a combination of having support team available to support the product once stood up for 3 or 6 months, or do we rapidly train and handover?