[sakai2-tcc] Agenda - Re: Invitations sent for TCC - CLECC meeting this week

Thu Dec 13 14:32:14 PST 2012

On 14/12/2012, at 6:14 AM, Anthony Whyte <arwhyte at umich.edu> wrote:

> The current JASIG incubation process provides a fine model for an Apereo incubation process as regards defining minimum acceptance requirements for new software initiatives.  It's less useful if one's goal is to review software already in production.  

The current Jasig incubation process deals with not only new projects, but with software that is 'donated'. In fact, in almost all of the cases, the software is already written and being used in production at a local institution. They then decide to put it through incubation so that others can benefit. It's the same as if someone in the Sakai community writes a tool and asks the TCC about getting it into core. Except they dont know to ask the TCC, and once the TCC gets the proposal, there is no standardised process to follow. More often than not, the TCC is the one to go out to people and ask them. It's backwards and I look forward to this being sorted out.

> This suggests a different sort of review than what is currently outlined by the JASIG incubation process, one that is rather more expansive and intensive than a software license review, contributor agreement check, support team check, etc.  Indeed, there is nothing in the current JASIG incubation process that touches on the subjects of code quality, maintainability, complexity, extensibility or whether a particular capability is accessible, easily internationalized, etc.

Right, which is why I am proposing that a high level code review is incorporated into the incubation process. Also, since a lot of Jasig projects are not very 'international' there hasn't been a lot of focus on this area in the past. But it's extremely important in Sakai so if we have one standard incubation model, internationalisation needs to be part of it, likewise with accessibility.

> If I understand you correctly I would think that a review of the sort you advocate for existing projects is of a type that should be conducted periodically by the project steering group itself and then communicated outwards rather than be overseen by some other body.    

Sure, the steering group can conduct the review. But does the steering group oversee projects that already have a project team? Or just the ones that have no owner? At the moment does the steering group (the TCC) oversee Message Centre or Profile2 or Lessons? If those groups did their own review the results would be a bit skewed IMO. I think there is value in having an external body conduct the review. You wouldn't audit your own taxes. And in any case, some body needs to be responsible for saying project X is being deprecated. At the moment that is the TCC, but what is the criteria for deprecation? 

>> At the moment it is the Apereo board brainstorming a document for an incubation model for Apereo, and the current Incubation group is working on how to expand the Jasig process to cover Sakai as well.
> 
> 
> Is the "brainstorming" doc public?  Does the IWG have any output from its current work available for review?

The document is still in its infancy. The board is just discussing ideas. The topic came up so I communicated my ideas here. Once we meet to discuss there will no doubt be further calls for participation. If you have ideas you want to see in an incubation process, feel free to send them to me and I can note them in the document, for discussion.

cheers,
Steve

> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 6:41 PM, Steve Swinsburg wrote:
> 
>> At the moment it is the Apereo board brainstorming a document for an incubation model for Apereo, and the current Incubation group is working on how to expand the Jasig process to cover Sakai as well.
>> 
>> A few months ago there was a call for people to get involved in the planning of the new incubation process (IIRC) so if you are interested in participating I would shoot Susan Bramhall at Yale an email.
>> 
>> Here is the current Jasig incubation process, which is quite comprehensive:
>> https://wiki.jasig.org/display/INCU/Incubation+Process
>> 
>> If a project is in good shape, its just ticking boxes. I dont think anyone should be afraid of applying that to all modules in Sakai. If a project is in such poor shape that it fails then its probably a good idea that is identified so it can either be replaced or brought up to scratch.
>> 
>> Note that the review also covers licensing, and one thing we can use for that is this Jasig maven plugin:
>> https://wiki.jasig.org/display/LIC/maven-notice-plugin
>> 
>> cheers,
>> Steve
>> 
>> 
> 
> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:06 PM, Steve Swinsburg wrote:
> 
>> Define a fully fledged project in Jasig. Is the example uPortal? 
> 
> CAS, Bedework and yes, uPortal
> 
>> 
>> Apart from the core portal, uPortal is a bunch of portlets, which all went through the incubation process. Each portlet could be equated to a Sakai tool. 
>> 
>> I see a lot of value in ensuring that the current modules we have are maintainable, still meet licensing requirements, have an identified support team, are internationalised, and many other aspects, mostly technical. There is a lot of amazingly crap and over complex code in various modules that, whilst it still works, is a pain point for anyone making a modification or extension, and if someone had some time could have some love to make it better. That could be identified from the review.
>> 
>> We are also talking about periodic review of projects to ensure they still meet the criteria.
>> 
>> cheers,
>> S
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Seth Theriault <slt at columbia.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Steve Swinsburg
>> <steve.swinsburg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > In any case, yes, there will be an incubation process, how it relates to the
>> > CLE and other existing projects is being discussed. My initial thoughts are
>> > for a review of all modules of CLE for code debt, areas for enhancements and
>> > maintenance/support, rather than just grandfathering it all in.
>> 
>> Who exactly is discussing this? The existing Jasig Incubation group? A
>> new incarnation of the Jasig Incubation group? The Apereo Board
>> certainly seems to be?
>> 
>> I would like to think that the people discussing this are planning to
>> engage the various project-specific "steering groups" --- using this
>> term loosely -- for input. But perhaps I am thinking too far ahead.
>> 
>> Seth
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sakai2-tcc mailing list
>> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai2-tcc/attachments/20121214/bd29beff/attachment.html 