[Using Sakai] [Building Sakai] Sakai Portal 2.9 RoadMap and Sakai Course at University of Michigan

[csev]

Matthew,

I generally agree with Michael's points - I moved his response below so I can comment in line.

> On Jan 24, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Mathieu Plourde wrote:
> 
>> Hi Chuck,
>> 
>> I have some questions for you and the other folks on-list:
>> 
>> 1) How many more years do institutions expect to run Sakai CLE (2.x)? 

This is a good question and probably needs a poll.  My own internal mental model is that some schools (for some value of "some") will be running the CLE for another decade - so it is worth some investment at this time to move it forward so those schools are less vulnerable to feeling like they are forever falling behind.  My roadmap details the areas I think are the most pressing needs for improvement in the CLE.

>> At Delaware, we are not eager to move to OAE (3.x) just yet. In fact, we're probably going to be running Sakai CLE for at least another 3 to 4 years in one shape or another (hybrid).
>> 
>> 2) How are we gathering and addressing requirements coming from the community?

For Sakai CLE, the Technical Coordination Committee is the place where the resources and leadership for the CLE come together and make commitments to each other regarding the direction for the CLE.  We use the TCC to help set priorities and make decisions when simple consensus is not sufficient.

You should expect to see presentations from the TCC at the next Sakai conference and there will be TCC meetings at the next conference and we may even have TCC face-to-face meetings off-cycle.  The TCC mailing list is public and you are welcome to subscribe and participate.

The TCC is the governing body of the CLE for now - it is a round-table of the CLE contributors and serves primarily as communication rather than command and control.

>> 2.1) I tend to create Jira tickets to request new features or suggest improvements, but is the community even looking at those? (I'm not talking bug-reporting here, but process changes and new tools or features)

This is the right thing to do - there is no where else.  But resourcing is all volunteer so be patient.

>> 2.2) Are there better ways to suggest improvements to the Sakai CLE? 

Yes - bring or pay for resources - those resources can come and help insure that your local priorities get some attention.

>> 2.3) Is it even worth suggesting improvements to Sakai CLE, or is the developer community so tied-up in OAE developing and back-porting that no extra work will be included anyway?

Yes - as Michael says this is not a zero-sum game and it is absolutely not a win-lose situation.  The OAE has resources that would not automatically be available to the CLE if they were not on the OAE and vice-versa.   Having both the OAE and CLE efforts insures that organizations can invest based on their local needs, vision, priorities and interests.  Having the CLE and OAE generates more resources overall for our community and that is a wonderful thing.

>> I'm asking these questions because we are about to create a Sakai Faculty Advisory Committee that would look at Sakai and identify pain points and potential improvements, but if we're not using the right channels or if no one is listening, then we're just going to be wasting our time.

As a guy who said above that I personally think the CLE has at least 10 years of life left in it, I would say 'Yes - definitely' - but be patient. 

And again, I will restate that I agree with Michael's points below.

/Chuck

On Jan 24, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Michael Feldstein wrote:

> To be honest, this whole line of inquiry feels a little backwards to me--and a little outdated in terms of the whole CLE/OAE discussion. We have new schools coming on to CLE all the time, and plenty of existing schools who have no plans to move to OAE at the moment. The presumption should be that we're going to continue to invest resources in developing CLE for the foreseeable future.
> 
> I have certainly heard the assertion from some quarters that OAE is taking needed resources that otherwise would have gone to CLE, but I don't yet see any compelling evidence showing that it is true. In my view, the larger issue with CLE development is that there hasn't been a strong coherent case articulated for major new development. Nobody is going to throw resources at CLE--or *any* project--without a clear understanding of why that investment will buy them more than any of the other investments they could be making. If you don't make the case, managers will assume that CLE is just fine the way it is and can be safely ignored. 
> 
> Chuck has done a good job proposing some reasonably ambitious plans for 2.9. It would be good to see those plans further solidified and then for somebody to do a resource gap analysis so we know how much new resource we'll need committed to get the work done. At that point, the leadership in the community, including but not limited to the Board, can help get the word out to the various resource owners and see if we can find commitment to deliver on the vision. From there, it's just lather, rinse, repeat. I see no reason why future CLE releases can't grow more ambitious for the foreseeable future, even as OAE is maturing. But that only happens *after* there is (a) a clearly articulated vision/roadmap that is attractive and compelling to the resource owners and (b) an equally clearly articulated resource gap analysis detailing what kind of commitment it will take to make the vision real.
> 
> - m
> 
> Michael Feldstein | Principal Product Strategy Manager
> Phone: +1 413-591-8448 
> Oracle Academic Enterprise Solutions
> 25 Christian Hill Road | Great Barrington, MA 01230 
> 

Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai-user/attachments/20110124/3aae6214/attachment-0001.html