Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of FoodRequests


Ignore:
Timestamp:
01/31/10 04:09:24 (12 years ago)
Author:
Fran Boon
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • FoodRequests

    v1 v2  
    1515 * 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.
    1616 * 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... fulfill requests, 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. 
    1818 * Requests could be "downloaded" and "validated", and the status manually updated.
    1919 * They have looked at our Haiti.SF.org site and say that all the elements and functionality is there.
     
    2626[[BR]]
    2727'''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.
    2930 * We need to budget operating and support costs in near-term and long term.
    3031 * 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
    3235 * 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  * Fran: I'd happily do this free, however the timetable is very tight & we're committed on many fronts currently.
    3337 * 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.
    3438 * 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?