[Deploying Sakai] [Management] Configuration in Sakai 2 (was Re: [Building Sakai] What do you think about Config Viewer?)

Noah Botimer botimer at umich.edu
Fri Jan 8 07:00:50 PST 2010


To be clear, I meant relationships to projects already under light  
supervision. For example, if we decided that properties should be  
registered or handled differently, we would introduce an expectation  
that these projects would follow suit.

Updating lightly maintained projects to meet new community-wide goals  
or expectations is something I see as fitting for a Maintenance Team.  
However, these expectations need to be created with consideration, or  
we risk diluting the MT's technical stewardship and coercing it into  
a hit squad for new ideas.

This is one reason that I am suggesting the idea of a named  
configuration improvement project -- a scoped initiative to update  
understanding and practice community-wide that can be planned,  
executed, and checked off the list as a victory.

We probably have enough to draft a project proposal and see if there  
are any nibbles -- or park it if the time isn't right.

Thanks,
-Noah

On Jan 8, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Anthony Whyte wrote:

> Given that Config viewer is a contrib tool it falls outside the  
> Maintenance Team's zone of responsibility (e.g., unsupported/weakly  
> supported Sakai core projects).
>
>> We still have to maintain Config Viewer for Sakai 2.6 and 2.7. I  
>> hope we
>> can still find volunteers for this. If the powers that be decide the
>> Maintenance Team should work on this even if it's not an official  
>> tool,
>> I would thank them.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Anth
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2010, at 8:12 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque wrote:
>
>> +1 for Confluence
>>
>> I think all those that have contributed have the same general target.
>>
>> It's obvious Config Viewer and Editor have inspired us a lot and  
>> we all
>> should thank Tony for this. I don't think he would mind how much  
>> of his
>> code will still be used in Sakai 2.8 or later. I think we can't  
>> say for
>> sure if we will build the future config features from Config
>> Viewer/Editor or not. If changes we need are in parts of the code
>> maintained by the maintenance team, I think the config team should
>> submit changes for maintenance team approval like any other fix  
>> contributor.
>>
>> We still have to maintain Config Viewer for Sakai 2.6 and 2.7. I  
>> hope we
>> can still find volunteers for this. If the powers that be decide the
>> Maintenance Team should work on this even if it's not an official  
>> tool,
>> I would thank them.
>>
>> I don't think anyone thought you represented the Council. I  
>> thought it
>> was good to have a member of the Council involved in this discussion,
>> whatever the Council decides later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - J-F
>>
>> Noah Botimer a écrit :
>>> Jean-Francois,
>>>
>>> Thank you for summarizing this material. I was going to suggest that
>>> there has been enough thoughtful exchange here to archive the  
>>> topic in
>>> Confluence.
>>>
>>> It is probably also worth scoping out two or three levels of  
>>> project and
>>> asking again for levels of interest in them. I would like for us  
>>> to not
>>> lose your original question, which I take as a call for  
>>> involvement on
>>> the Config Viewer and consideration of it as a project going into
>>> incubation with aspirations of moving forward in our newly refined
>>> product development process.
>>>
>>> One final detail is that this should all be considered in  
>>> relation to
>>> the Maintenance Team. There are lots of properties related to  
>>> code that
>>> seems to match up with the eventual MT scope. We should not set
>>> accidental expectations on a young group, whatever work is  
>>> undertaken.
>>>
>>> As a personal opinion, I think that most of our work these days  
>>> should
>>> be examined for items that apply in the Sakai 3 context. Not  
>>> everything
>>> overlaps but it is always valuable to ask the question.
>>>
>>> Also, at the risk of being pedantic, my paticipation in this
>>> conversation has been as an individual. I make no claim that my
>>> contribution represents a Product Council opinion. My involvement  
>>> there
>>> should have no bearing on how this conversation is read. If the  
>>> PC forms
>>> an opinion, it will be as a group and communicated explicitly as  
>>> such.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Noah



More information about the production mailing list