[sakai2-tcc] Letter to the OAE steering committee?

[Mark Breuker]

Hi all,

As a non-contributing institution to the Sakai 2.9 release  effort (aham) perhaps it helps if I explain why we are not putting QA effort in 2.9. Usually we developing our local mods and own tools against the latest released version (in this case 2.8). We put local (2.8 based) releases into production every 3 months or so. Thus we have no short-term benefit in investing time in the next community release plus we simply don't have the time to spare. If on the other hand we could find a way where most of the tools / components are released more often (independent release cycles) and we could make sure they are compatible with multiple Sakai versions it would be more likely that we could contribute development/QA efforts because we would be able to use the latest versions. Creating a new (community) release would then be focused on selecting the right mix of core components and tools and doing integration testing.

In short: better alignment of community releases with local institutional releases would help in my opinion.

Kind regards,

Mark

Mark Breuker
Product Owner
Tel.: +31 71 5451 203
Leidse Onderwijsinstellingen bv
Leidsedreef 2
2352 BA Leiderdorp
www.loi.nl-----Original Message-----
From: sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org [mailto:sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf Of Steve Swinsburg
Sent: woensdag 21 maart 2012 14:39
To: May, Megan Marie
Cc: Sakai 2 Technical Coordination Committee
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] Letter to the OAE steering committee?

Good idea Megan. uPortal did this recently to figure out deployer's plans w.r.t to uP4 vs sticking with uP3. Cris Holdorph ran this, IIRC.

However, I think it's important that any survey has a positive/neutral spin so it is viewed as that of a data collection tool only, rather than a plea for help which may cause people to prematurely jump ship.

cheers,
Steve

On 22/03/2012, at 12:23 AM, May, Megan Marie wrote:

> My first thought it that we need to get a reading on what the community wants in terms of expectations for the CLE and OAE before taking any action.   Once we have that understanding map out what resources are needed to accomplish that.
>
> How do we do that?    I've been thinking and the only reasonable conclusion I have is to survey partners.  At that point there should be enough information to make data driven decisions.
> Megan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org [mailto:sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Zeckoski
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:27 AM
> To: Sakai 2 Technical Coordination Committee
> Subject: [sakai2-tcc] Letter to the OAE steering committee?
>
> It came up in the meeting with the board (and more afterward) that we need to find funds to pay for a dedicated full time CLE person. The suggestion of asking/making the OAE steering committee aware of the need has come up. The idea would be to explain that a failure of CLE would (1) erode trust in the Sakai brand and probably limit adoption of OAE and (2) damage OAE in the short term since it lacks most of the teaching and learning functionality that is necessary for schools.
> Then we would ask that they direct some funding towards a fulltime CLECC person (which may also have to take on hybrid and perhaps some QA coordination).
>
> Thoughts?
> -AZ
>
>
> --
> Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile _______________________________________________
> sakai2-tcc mailing list
> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
> _______________________________________________
> sakai2-tcc mailing list
> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc

_______________________________________________
sakai2-tcc mailing list
sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc