Talk:OHT Architecture Project Value Proposition Survey

Questions that arose in the initial review:

• <Tooling WG> 2) What is the intent of question 2 - head count or FTE - recognize that participation in OHT can be in many different roles, not just coders. Suggest defined measure such as small= <5, medium=5-15,large>15 - and FTE measures will be unlikely to be reliable, but headcount is not a good measure of intensity, especially spread out over time.
• <Tooling WG> 3) What is meant by contribution - HL7 has contributed source files, testing and review, but not code.
• <Tooling WG> 7) There was discussion about what was meant by a single Tooling Architecture with differing interpretations of what the OHT Architecture Project's intent was - further clarification in the introduction or definition of terms is needed. There was general agreement that the Foundation Projects needed to follow an architecture framework and be interoperable, but the terms architecture principles and architecture framework were used instead of the more specific conceptual, logical, platform bound or technology bound. No expectation that OHT should focus on a single technology stack.
• <ArB> There needs to be a question on what is the Organization's policy around both contributing and consuming Open Source products.
• <ArB> There needs to be a clear direction of what the process is for gathering requirements for OHT projects. And the governance of OHT Architecture needs to be bound to the success of that requirements gathering process. It would be easier for an OHT member organization to respond to the survey if they did have and Enterprise Architecture approach internally - otherwise multiple, but inconsistent answers would result.
• <ArB> The OHT questions are oriented to the OHT projects and the cohesion of the resulting code - it is not focused on how they are used
• <ArB> Any organization's willingness to adhere to a common framework would be in their perceived risk, cost and time to do it themselves - using open source with their own products may be a concern.
• <ArB> need to clarify language to make sure it is clear that the scope of the questions are around OHT projects and not intended to be about how an organization uses OHT open source code.