[cle-release-team] [sakai2-tcc] Emerging consensus to focus on 2.10

Anthony Whyte arwhyte at umich.edu
Thu Sep 5 16:02:02 PDT 2013 

>> 2.10 with all due haste; 2.9 with all due conscience.

Beautiful line (the best of the bunch, with all due respect).  Poetic in its cadence and expresses well the sentiments of those who participated in the CLE Team call today.  

Anth


anthony whyte | its and mlibrary | university of michigan | arwhyte at umich.edu | 517-980-0228


On Sep 5, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Noah Botimer wrote:

> I always use too many words. I wish I were more succinct and eloquent, but here we go...
> 
> Maybe I'm reading "we" too broadly, but I am allergic to any prospective, community-wide statements. That is, "we will" and "we are" should be much more qualified about who is or will be doing what. They should be statements of fact and commitment -- persuasion or debate about priorities should be completely separate (I suggest it is not very valuable in a broad context).
> 
> If you, and others on the calls, decide that it's time to coordinate activity around 2.10, just do it. There is no prerequisite -- not even 2.9.0 being released. The scale will tip by virtue of the scale being tipped -- others will follow if and when they are ready, but never simply because someone else is or says they should be. This is my excess deliberation bit -- just go and do. If people depending on 2.9 releases sense something wrong and need help, they will tell you and you can adjust.
> 
> To clarify my sticking point about development, I think that the focus issue is much more about where you spend your CLECC time, QA spends their time, and what bugs/features are discussed on the calls. Development is just development and it basically all happens in trunk anyway. If new features have more priority, it will feel like 2.10 is being worked on. If fixes are being made and merged for the stuff people are running now, it will feel like 2.9 is being worked on. But effectively all development is "for 2.10" -- the "development shift" happened around January, albeit without much strategy or coordination.
> 
> So, yes, it probably is just terminology. Maybe we mean coordination, QA, and mechanical release prep focus shifting to the next major release. And I do support that. With all due haste.
> 
> But you are definitely welcome to visit. :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> -Noah
> 
> 
> 
> P.S., I think we should be talking strategically about two major releases. A way to earmark a feature/project for "not now, but definitely for next time" is long absent. Our classical "done" and "to do sometime" lists lose the value of identified priority items and the planning to mobilize them by piling them up with a bunch of stuff that isn't as important and causes endless, too-late rehash of the same list. See also, the excitement and pretty quick flatline around "Dave's list" -- not many of the items will be done for 2.10 and some of them are elephants we should start eating now, but we don't have a mechanism for talking strategically about "v.next".
> 
> P.P.S., I'll be quiet now. Development focus probably meant what you intended to everyone else. The more alignment the better.
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Neal Caidin wrote:
> 
>> Hi Noah,
>> 
>> Well, maybe it is a terminology thing, but I'm confused, because it clearly impacts my life and what I focus on, how I communicate, etc, as I'm confident you can imagine. Working with the TCC, CLE and others to set schedules, priorities, test plans, etc. So if we were to say that we are focusing on getting a 2.9.4 out by November, that would be a very different focus for me than if we focus on getting a alpha release (or whatever ) of 2.10 by November. In fact, I'm not even sure of the activities needed to get a 2.10 alpha/beta out, so that is part of what I'll be working on, understanding what is needed. I'm pretty confident of what would be needed if we try to get a 2.9.4 out.
>> 
>> I am probably missing your red herring argument. It's not making sense to me. It seems to me the more we are all on the same focus, the more effective we will be, and the greater the opportunity for achieving milestones and goals. I do see it as a focus and not merely a reflection. But maybe I'll have to fly up to Michigan to discuss, get some more coffee and some of those home baked cookies, just to clear things up ;-)
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Neal
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Neal Caidin
>> Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
>> neal.caidin at apereo.org
>> Skype: nealkdin
>> Twitter: ncaidin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 5, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Noah Botimer <botimer at umich.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> 2.10 shall be the version thou shalt develop, and the version of the development shall be 2.10. Not.
>>> 
>>> ------
>>> 
>>> I don't think there can be any reasonable "position" on this issue. I'm belaboring the point, but I consider a controllable "development focus" on 2.9 vs. 2.10 to be a complete red herring. Almost as silly as my opening.
>>> 
>>> All developers involved will focus on what seems important to them and their organizations. 2.9.4 and 2.10 are not mutually exclusive as far development effort. Except where trunk has moved beyond compatibility with 2.9, all work should happen there. If a defect is present and important, it will be merged to 2.9.x. A rare, one-off for a defect in 2.9.x but not trunk is just that.
>>> 
>>> If people are interested in investing in new features, upgrades, etc., that interest should be curated and, to an appropriate extent, coordinated. For example, what on "Dave's list" seems important to the community and who is ready to work on any of it? If something is disruptive, let's discuss a timeline and mitigation. If something needs particular skills or resources, let's discuss it and maybe do some matchmaking.
>>> 
>>> But this is not a dictated "development focus". That is simply not something we can command.
>>> 
>>> If what we're saying is that QA is interested in testing the next major features/release because the 2.9 bug count is low, that's fine. If we're saying that developers are interested in developing new features/upgrades, that's fine. If we're saying that institutions are finding 2.9.3 solid enough and that they are interested in paving their future with features, that's fine.
>>> 
>>> My ultimate point is that this "focus" is really only a reflection. It's good to observe, but it is not a prerequisite to any work (on any release), nor can it be "shifted" forward except by work in trunk and a clear outline of how changes fit together, leading others across the gap.
>>> 
>>> Those who are interested in 2.10 should work on it and help coordinate it by being vocal about the specific features they are working on and think should be in our next major release. Nothing more, less, or different than ever.
>>> 
>>> 2.10 with all due haste; 2.9 with all due conscience.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Noah
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> P.S., Please forgive my ranting if I misunderstand the summary and question. I read it as excessive deliberation amounting to "we think we can do work soon; just need a few more converts". If it is more along the lines of "the 14 on the call have already been working on new stuff, so the calls are going to spend more time on those items", I apologize and applaud the movement.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 5, 2013, at 12:33 PM, May, Megan Marie wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I don’t think it’s possible to say if I have concerns without a timeline for 2.10.    Goals would be nice but I don’t want to press it J 
>>>>  
>>>> If it’s in the Spring 2014 I am less inclined to be concerned.   If we’re talking summer or fall, that will likely change.   
>>>>  
>>>> From: sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org [mailto:sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf Of Neal Caidin
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 11:21 AM
>>>> To: cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org; sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org Committee
>>>> Subject: [sakai2-tcc] Emerging consensus to focus on 2.10
>>>>  
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>  
>>>> Summary
>>>> -----------------
>>>> There appears to be an emerging consensus to shift the development focus to 2.10.  If you have concerns about this please speak up. 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Supporting evidence
>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>> This consensus is based on :
>>>>  
>>>> * The TCC discussion at Open Apereo 2013 (under future release cycles) - https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/TCC/2013+Apereo+TCC+Meeting+Notes 
>>>>  
>>>> * The email discussion thread - http://sakai-project-mail-list-archives.1343168.n2.nabble.com/sakai2-tcc-CLE-2-9-4-vs-CLE-2-10-effort-tt7591837.html
>>>>  
>>>> * Today's CLE release team meeting with approximately 13-14 attending, for which there was consensus to focus on the 2.10 release
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Additional thoughts
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>> It seems to me that there are still some open questions with 2.10, but nothing that would prevent us from shifting development/qa focus onto it. In my mind we still need to flesh out the goals for 2.10, work on a realistic timeline, and perhaps, most difficult of all, decide on a name ! :-)   
>>>>  
>>>> 2.9 will continue to be supported as the production release, of course, and we might want some further discussion on the best way to manage the 2.9.x branch and/or community expectations (e.g. keep track of 2.9.x changes post-2.9.3 ; possibly create a 2.9.4 tag at some point [though there was not a lot of enthusiasm on today's CLE call for that strategy], etc.).
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> If I have misstated anything, please feel free to correct me. 
>>>>  
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Neal
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Neal Caidin
>>>> Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
>>>> neal.caidin at apereo.org
>>>> Skype: nealkdin
>>>> Twitter: ncaidin
>>>>  
>>>>  
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cle-release-team mailing list
> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/cle-release-team/attachments/20130905/f6e8a6b8/attachment-0001.html

More information about the cle-release-team mailing list