Great feedback, Felix, Zayyad. I would like to share a perspective from history and why the big picture approach and broader mission is so important.
There was a phrase in use when I was a baby. "Separate, but Equal." This was a phrase used to justify keeping US school systems segregated by race. "Separate but Equal" was a lie. The systems were never equal in funding, quality or anything else. Finance and access is the same. *What does that have to do with Fineract?* Mission solely dedicated to the unbanked shrinks the number of people willing to join the community. Others may be sympathetic, but won't directly participate by contributing. I happen to be interested in the unbanked and personally support that mission. HOWEVER, my main interest in Fineract is to support a commercial enterprise Open Source core banking system. A core banking system which integrates embedds services anywhere, not just microfinance and money transfers. When the Fineract mission was focused on the unbanked, it was seriously under participated IMO. With its slight change in mission which is still inclusive of the underbanked, participation is increasing and releases are beginning to become more regular. The unbanked needs to be supported with a system capable of full integration with the rest of the world, not a "separate but equal system". I hope my history story makes sense to at least support my POV. *How Fineract works for the unbanked with its current mission statement. * MIFOS is solely dedicated to the underserved and has the frontend to do so. In my opinion, if collection sheets are still used in working with unbanked, then MIFOS community should adopt and help maintain them them as a current, modern, secure function so that the MIFOS frontend works with the Fineract backend. MIFOS like all other users of Fineract get the benefit of a stronger core banking system and vendors with dedicated purpose work together to maintain their particular core channels within Fineract. The image is a generalization to convey the concept. (It may not be precise as to the vendors and players, but should reinforce my POV.) So, you, your interest or company wants a function or to maintain an existing function? GREAT! Step up! Own that solution within Fineract. [image: image.png] I speak solely for myself and my POV, but this approach will generate 10X deeper support than segregated methods. In the past, there was insufficient community, but I think there was also "community orchestration" missing to a degree. *Fail Model:* Hoping it all gets done and telling the community at large "do something" doesn't work. *Success Model: * When a platform is useful across a whole ecosystem, then it can be jointly maintained with nominal management. People are willing to help. Just like musicians want to play music, they want to work together. In RARE circumstances, the community is so SINGLE minded, the build, like JAZZ, happens spontaneously and all agree, its really cool. *However, the bulk of the world needs direction and orchestration* to "make music" of product delivery. Because of those many different interests, Fineract needs process to harmonize and create results. In the end, there also must be a binary decision, "yes or no" to support an issue. It comes down to; " will a community member support a function important to their channel?" I'm not a developer, my useful skills are domain knowledge and instructional orchestration (process). So I challenge all community members to find a channel required to fulfill your channel or interest and volunteer to "own it" through a date certain. Better yet, form a small team of like minds and assure that function is ALWAYS current and secure. This is a challenge to all community members and targeting no one. Paul On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 3:34 PM James Dailey <jdai...@apache.org> wrote: > Zayyad, Felix and others - > > Indeed. And all of this was laid out for many years as the strategy. > > When I was on the Board of Mifos (the non profit, not the project) we > decided to contribute the MifosX code to the ASF to ensure both: > a) a broader financial services industry approach, and > b) a more established foundational home for the core of the project. > > There were other reasons, but those remain primary in my mind. > > The concept was that Mifos org, which is a Vendor in the ASF parlance, > would continue its Financial Inclusion mission and make sure that the > releases that were coming out of the project would retain the flavor and > intent of the original mifos project (which I started and designed in > 2001). The Mifos AdminUI /CommunityApp open source front end UI gave it a > place in the ecosystem and a way to ensure that alignment. > > But, importantly, when we made this decision, we deliberately wanted to > see more financial institutions and fintechs use the backend system, AND > vitally, to help maintain it, with contributions upstream. That is the > sign of a healthy open source project. > > I don't speak for Mifos, but I believe that the vision at Mifos remains > about financial inclusion. But the vision of Fineract and the mission of > the project is different. We actually VOTED on this revised statement as a > community, I think five years ago. > > So, if you are seeing a difference between Mifos and Fineract, then we > have succeeded in an important goal. The two are NOT THE SAME. This is > NOT mifos. > > This has been called out in many many Reports to the ASF Board. See the > wiki pages for those. The key theme is Vendor neutrality - we do not > privilege any vendor. > > And, I would argue that this is the right healthy direction for this > Fineract project. Microfinance serves an important role in the world, and > continues despite many expecting it to decline or go away. And, the > mission of the original concept of Mifos was not about Microfinance but > about financial inclusion. However that happens. > > And, fundamentally, I personally remain focused on this - disrupting the > financial industry with open source software that can functionally be the > basis of any bank or fintech globally. It should lower the cost of > financial inclusion, it should do that via any kind of institution at a > structural level. Unbanked and underbanked are included. > > So, if you are not seeing what you want here, then you can invest more > time and resources to make it more of what you want, but I would also > suggest that the fundamental thing is to have healthy vendors that move the > project forward with lots of "built on top of" functionality that serve a > wide range of financial institutions. If those components are also open > source, that's ok, but it isn't essential. > > ** Deprecation process ** > Deprecating features is a natural part of any system evolution - we need > to prune the tree from time to time. If users are demanding those features > then they should speak up - as this thread illustrated - and mechanisms > need to be put in place to "protect them". Here of course, I am referring > to my last email and testing, to start with. > > And, we should do a better job of documenting the product roadmap, and > having clear discussions about deprecating features - Before they are > deprecated. > > That starts with you listing your required feature set and documenting it > somewhere perhaps - or relying on the Vendor to speak up for your interests > if you don't. > > And, this is a good discussion to have. Perhaps a community call on this > topic would be welcomed in coming weeks. > > James > > > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 3:13 AM Zayyad A. Said < > zay...@intrasofttechnologies.com> wrote: > >> Hello Fineract community, >> >> I concur with the observations below from Felix. >> >> We have been implementing Mifos since 2011 and we have seen the project >> transitioning from Mifos 2.x to Mifos X and now with the new developments. >> The current focus seems to have shifted from the original mission of >> "Creating a world of 3 Billion Maries where each of the 2 billion poor and >> unbanked has access to the financial resources needed to create a better >> life for themselves and their family." >> >> Group lending has been used for decades and Mifos was originally intended >> for and served the model, the new features being introduced are geared >> towards commercial use. We saw this coming and we had to maintain old fork >> for our MFI clients where we continue to improve based on their needs. >> >> While I have no problem with having new features, I seem not to >> understand why we want to deprecate features of group lending that are >> still being used even if with the minority of users globally yet they do no >> harm to the security and overall performance of the project. >> >> I suggest the leadership to rethink the idea of deprecating collection >> sheet functionality and other key features used in group lending. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Zayyad A. Said >> Intrasoft Technologies Limited >> >> ********* >> >> *Zayyad A. Said | Chief Executive Officer* >> >> Suite H32, Delamere Flats - Milimani Road, Nairobi. >> >> Cell No.: +254 716 615274 | Skype: *zsaid2011* >> >> Email: zay...@intrasofttechnologies.com >> >> Schedule Meetings: https://calendly.com/zayyadsaid >> >> <https://calendly.com/zayyadsaid> >> >> >> *" You can achieve what you want if you just help enough others get what >> they want.."* >> >> *Note: Save the environment, please don't print this email unless its >> really necessary for you to do that.* >> >> On Sat, Aug 30, 2025, 11:20 Felix van Hove <fvanh...@gmx.de.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> Let me chip in with a more personal perspective. >>> >>> I'm following the development of the Mifos web app and - to a certain >>> extend - Fineract for a couple of months only. My impression from the >>> influx of new features in Fineract is that these are predominantly not >>> for microfinance or small entities, which Mifos once set out to support. >>> In fact - Fineract only states that its efforts are also "including the >>> unbanked and underbanked" - not its focus. >>> >>> I see the deprecation of the Collection Sheet feature in this context. >>> How many new features have been added in the last 12 months that help >>> the "unbanked"? How many have been added that help larger commercial >>> entities and are of no benefit for "the unbanked"? >>> >>> My personal contributions depend solely on Mifos/Fineract supporting >>> efforts for financial inclusion. I regard it as of utter importance >>> respective features don't come as a plugin, but first class citizens. >>> >>> My knowledge regarding fintech is very limited. If I'm wrong or >>> misrespresent things, please tell me. >>> >>> Felix >>> >>> On 29/08/2025 21:01, James Dailey wrote: >>> > Devs - Are we done with this? >>> > >>> > First, I am NOT ruling out this functionality as important but if no >>> one is >>> > actually demanding it, and no one is willing to maintain it, then it >>> > doesn't get maintained. That is the nature of open source projects. >>> > >>> > Second, it can happen that an outside vendor (e.g. Mifos) that relies >>> > on this Collection Sheet functionality (or any functionality) >>> inadvertently >>> > drops that from their front end release. Because the tests at >>> Fineract do >>> > not cover this fully, no one at the Vendor and no one at the Fineract >>> > project will see the functionality fail in a build until a customer or >>> > implementer notices. So, tests are vital for ensuring ongoing >>> > maintainability. >>> > >>> > Third, if this type of thing isn't "naturally" part of the core - then >>> it >>> > will make a lot more sense to have it be an outside extension - in >>> which >>> > case the tests have to be written for the API calls, and a Vendor >>> should >>> > try to get such tests contributed. I could be wrong about this, I >>> would >>> > be happy to debate where this belongs. >>> > >>> > @Edward Cable <edca...@mifos.org> - what is the assessment and status >>> of >>> > needed functionality and where do you think it should live? >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > James >>> > >>> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 8:21 AM James Dailey <jdai...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Sifiso - >>> >> >>> >> Do we have a way to reach the tens of thousands of institutions you >>> >> believe are there? >>> >> >>> >> My belief (just anecdotal information) is that it’s more like a few >>> >> hundred institutions and that out of that number, less than 10% are >>> on a >>> >> recent release. And, of that smaller number, few, if any, are still >>> using >>> >> Collection Sheets. I could be wrong - I’d like the data! I’d say >>> that >>> >> vendors can show up with their data here to help make this vendor >>> neutral >>> >> space more informed. >>> >> >>> >> If group lending and group-member lending and collection sheets are >>> still >>> >> needed, then perhaps those project volunteers can contribute the >>> needed >>> >> updates to keep the functionality useful. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks >>> >> Thanks >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 6:48 AM Sifiso Mtetwa < >>> sif...@skyburgsystems.org> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This is an interesting topic. I have been wondering why, in general, >>> we >>> >>> seem to be deprecating more and more system functions. The individual >>> >>> collection sheet has served us well over the years and still does, If >>> >>> anything we could improve on its functionality by maybe adding a bulk >>> >>> collection sheet template with little detail compared to a full loan >>> >>> repayment bulk import template. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Fineract is used by tens of thousands of organisations throughout the >>> >>> world and most of them are not on this listing and may not have a >>> voice to >>> >>> air their concerns. Maybe we can find a way of exposing this thread >>> to >>> >>> include more voters. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* James Dailey [mailto:jdai...@apache.org] >>> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, 16 August 2025 02:53 >>> >>> *To:* dev@fineract.apache.org >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: Collection Sheet Deprecation was [Re: Questions and >>> >>> Observations on FINERACT-2290 (Collection Sheet API Refactor)] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree this needs to be discussed but it is important to acknowledge >>> >>> that THIS Fineract listserv is the only official (and required) >>> discussion >>> >>> space. It is not the intention to bury anything in “an email >>> thread”. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> When I started up Mifos we spent a lot of time looking at Collection >>> >>> Sheets and designing process flows around them. I fully know that >>> this >>> >>> design direction was important back then in 2002-2006. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> However if there is no one here asking for them to be retained >>> besides >>> >>> you, then that is a sign that they have perhaps reached an end of >>> their >>> >>> utility. Or, that the users are not actually here, which is a >>> different >>> >>> problem. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So,… If there is a group using collection sheets in production AND >>> they >>> >>> are not on some permanent forked (old) version, then now is the time >>> to >>> >>> speak up. Here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Generally, I’m fairly certain we can refactor this with an eye toward >>> >>> extracting it from the core. Repeating the logic in two places >>> makes no >>> >>> sense either. Collection sheets are kind of assembled from >>> >>> constituent loans and savings. The balances and due payments should >>> be >>> >>> calculated in the underlying components. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> As the system gets restructured we need to decide to keep this at >>> all, to >>> >>> keep it in a new place, or as some external concept/plug in. Why >>> wouldn’t >>> >>> we want a separate component? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 4:16 PM Ed Cable <edca...@mifos.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I'll leave the other thread for discussion of the API versioning and >>> >>> refactoring related to Collection Sheet API but wanted to create a >>> separate >>> >>> thread regarding the deprecation of the Collection Sheet. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> In general, for this and removal of any functionality, it's something >>> >>> that needs to be discussed openly with the community and with a vote >>> and >>> >>> not a decision buried in a mailing list thread. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> For the collection sheet specifically, more thought has to be given >>> to >>> >>> its deprecation as the centrality and highly coupled nature of the >>> >>> collection sheet is being understated as it isn't merely a report >>> that's to >>> >>> be printed or a form filled out via a mobile application. It's a >>> >>> significant portion of the user interface and highly coupled to many >>> of the >>> >>> microfinance features around groups/centers/meeting scheduling, staff >>> >>> assignment, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I do agree that from a UI perspective, the collection sheet and other >>> >>> microfinance-centric functionalities and flows should be viewable >>> based on >>> >>> a configurable setting. As it doesn't lend itself to the optimal user >>> >>> experience for a large portion of current Fineract user base. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I also am supportive of a strategy of slimming Fineract to its core >>> >>> services and functionality above core Fineract services and APIs can >>> be >>> >>> extracted out. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So I do think we should give thoughtful consideration to what >>> abstracting >>> >>> out the collection sheet and corresponding microfinance >>> functionality would >>> >>> look like and what that effort would entail to abstract it out >>> without >>> >>> adversely impacting the original user base of the software but it's >>> not as >>> >>> simple as deprecating these API. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I welcome others' thoughts and inputs as I know even with >>> microfinance >>> >>> itself, the methodology has evolved and group lending and the >>> concept of a >>> >>> collection sheet isn't as central as it once was >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 6:36 PM Kapil Panchal < >>> >>> kapil.panchal.developm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi James, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I can proceed by marking this feature as @Deprecated and/or >>> performing a >>> >>> safe refactor to remove the API. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> For API versioning I agree to Aleksandar Vidakovic's proposal on >>> adapting >>> >>> to the SpringBoot v7/Spring Framework v4. If I may, Aleksandar >>> >>> Vidakovic takes the lead on this project and I can help to support >>> the >>> >>> conversion? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> Kapil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 5:07 AM James Dailey <jdai...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Kapil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I might suggest looking at this as an opportunity to remove the >>> >>> collection sheet entirely from the Fineract namespace. It’s a legacy >>> >>> concept I and others designed a long time ago, originally in 2002 >>> based on >>> >>> collection sheets we gathered from a dozen countries. It is strongly >>> tied >>> >>> to concepts in microfinance field operations, and especially when >>> there was >>> >>> no data connectivity. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It belongs perhaps as a sort of external microservice - data loading >>> via >>> >>> a bulk import could still be enabled. >>> >>> >>> >>> The API versioning is a good idea but needs to be more holistic >>> across >>> >>> the platform I think. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 4:43 AM Ádám Sághy <adamsa...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Kapil, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you for raising the concerns below. I’ll need some additional >>> >>> details to fully understand your points: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. *Collection Sheet API* – You mentioned it appears >>> non-functional >>> >>> and contains several logical errors. >>> >>> >>> >>> o If it’s indeed not working, that’s a separate, high-priority >>> >>> discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> o Could you clarify which logical errors you were referring to, >>> and >>> >>> what specifically makes you think it’s non-functional? >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. *Service annotations* – You noted that service methods are >>> not >>> >>> annotated with @Service and that beans are defined manually. >>> >>> >>> >>> o Are you referring to the >>> >>> CollectionSheetWritePlatformServiceJpaRepositoryImpl bean being >>> defined >>> >>> via configuration? >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. *Repository wrappers annotated with **@Service* – You >>> mentioned >>> >>> that this mandates full unit test coverage but that they should >>> ideally be >>> >>> annotated with @Component. >>> >>> >>> >>> o Could you point out the exact classes you had in mind? >>> >>> >>> >>> As for the other points, I agree we can refactor and remove redundant >>> >>> logic—please feel free to suggest specific improvements or start >>> work on >>> >>> them immediately! >>> >>> >>> >>> However, be careful by moving anything into the fineract-core… We are >>> >>> aiming to keep it as small as possible as everything is built on top >>> of >>> >>> this module! If collection sheet are used for loans and savings - for >>> >>> example - than the recommended move is NOT to move this logic into >>> core! >>> >>> >>> >>> Either: >>> >>> >>> >>> - we split the logic into fineract-loan and fineract-savings >>> >>> >>> >>> - Move the logic into a new module >>> >>> >>> >>> - Leave it in fineract-provider for now >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Shall you have any questions, please let us know! >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2025. Aug 11., at 12:09, Kapil Panchal < >>> >>> kapil.panchal.developm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Adam, >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m currently working on *FINERACT-2290* and have a few questions >>> before >>> >>> I submit a pull request. >>> >>> >>> >>> The *Collection Sheet API* in its current state appears >>> non-functional >>> >>> and contains several logical errors. It seems there was an earlier >>> attempt >>> >>> to convert from a JSON string request parameter to a class-based >>> request >>> >>> object, but: >>> >>> >>> >>> Certain fields are missing. >>> >>> >>> >>> The serializer is not correctly populating the objects, which causes >>> the >>> >>> conditional checks to be bypassed and results in incorrect (false) >>> >>> responses. >>> >>> >>> >>> This change set is *high risk* because it touches most of the loan >>> and >>> >>> savings product logic. I’ve had to refactor almost all major methods. >>> >>> Extensive integration and end-to-end testing will be required to >>> ensure >>> >>> there are no regressions, especially in edge cases. At present, >>> there are >>> >>> no unit or integration tests for this functionality, and test >>> creation is >>> >>> outside the current ticket scope. I’ve been iterating on this for a >>> while, >>> >>> and only today have I reached a stable state after several >>> experimental and >>> >>> build-breaking attempts. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Key Observations:* >>> >>> >>> >>> Service methods are not annotated with @Service; instead, beans are >>> >>> defined manually. >>> >>> >>> >>> Repository wrappers are annotated with @Service. This mandates full >>> unit >>> >>> test coverage for these methods, but they should ideally be >>> annotated with >>> >>> @Component. >>> >>> >>> >>> I agree with prior discussions on separating bean validation — >>> having a >>> >>> dedicated @Component validation class allows the request object to >>> handle >>> >>> checks independent of database queries. >>> >>> >>> >>> Validation components can also perform database-related validations; >>> >>> these can be injected into service classes for cleaner architecture. >>> >>> >>> >>> Such validation components should be placed in *Fineract-Core* so >>> they >>> >>> are reusable across modules, reducing future refactoring needs. >>> >>> >>> >>> The current design of having commands in *Fineract-Core* and >>> >>> handlers/services/repositories in respective modules is good — it >>> cleanly >>> >>> decouples command definition from execution. >>> >>> >>> >>> There is extensive use of this. in singleton contexts (API, Service, >>> >>> Repository). While not harmful, it’s unnecessary boilerplate. >>> >>> >>> >>> Multiple redundant intermediate DTOs exist where the request DTO >>> itself >>> >>> could be reused for data transfer. >>> >>> >>> >>> I found redundant logic — e.g., a for loop with a break statement >>> that >>> >>> effectively executes only once; this can be simplified. >>> >>> >>> >>> Some JDBC template queries use reserved SQL keywords, causing >>> exceptions. >>> >>> Refactoring these queries resolves the issue and returns proper >>> response >>> >>> objects. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Suggestions:* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Where appropriate, large tickets should be broken into subtasks to >>> >>> manage complexity and reviewability.* >>> >>> >>> >>> It may help to have a dedicated *developer-only Slack channel *for >>> >>> technical discussions. This could complement other community spaces >>> if >>> >>> there’s a need to keep certain conversations more focused. >>> >>> >>> >>> What are your thoughts on the above? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Kapil >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> *Ed Cable* >>> >>> >>> >>> President/CEO, Mifos Initiative >>> >>> >>> >>> edca...@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | * >>> http://mifos.org >>> >>> <http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> -- -- Paul
