[sakai2-tcc] Planning for Sakai 2.10 and beyond

[Berg, Alan]

Just thinking along with you.

Chuck > We do not want *any* money or *any* people with strings attached.  They turn out to be anchors that drag us down to our death.

+ Seth: > I urge everyone to remember the history of the ill-fated Requirements
WG. And its previous incarnation: the Requirements WG.

I remember giving a presentation with the likes of Aaron Zeckoski in Valencia. It was about communities and doocracy. We even got a lead for Mexican waves (yes we know who you are :)). It was fun.

If we are missing resources it probably means that the barriers to dooacry need diminishing either at the Institutional level or individual level.  How do we move the effort from local GIt / Subversion and mSub into trunk? Stevens suggestion of reaching out to the community with a clear set of suggested entry points would not only give the TCC feedback, but also the community. Not thinking in extremes of a large set of requirements, but rather shaping the TCC's relationship with the wider community.

Alan

Alan Berg

Group Education and Research Services
Central Computer Services
University of Amsterdam
________________________________
From: Charles Severance [csev at umich.edu]
Sent: 24 September 2012 15:51
To: Sakai Technical Coordination Committee 2
Cc: Berg, Alan
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] Planning for Sakai 2.10 and beyond


On Sep 24, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Berg, Alan wrote:

CLE is resource starved. How would you translate this desire for improvement into Institutions volunteering resources for *central* change. How to convert non traditional organizations into visible contributing stakeholders. Surly, we need to expand the core team. Doesn’t that naturally imply a need to change process? Keeping the same track will slowly improve CLE, but at a slower pace than is needed by the wider market. What am I missing?

Alan,

What you are missing is that other than the original Mellon funding every single "donation" to any Sakai effort has come with so many strings attached that it is a net reduction in resources.  In OAE schools gave $200K - not to get $10K back in value - they gave $200K to get $1000K back in value - but unfortunately everyone's $1000K was different and non-overlapping - hence you end up with the "The Producers" scenario:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(1968_film)

Where the only winning strategy is to fail.

If you create some kind of central governance with the purpose of making sure that when schools or companies give resources, they "get their money's worth" and force volunteer developers to *report* to that political structure - it ends up being a political quagmire and completely disassociated with what the product and overall community really needs and the volunteer developers become bitter and leave and then when the governance gives up and folds - you have lost the volunteer developers.  OAE lost its way in a sea of competing short-term local priorities.

We must resist the notion that the failed OAE governance is allowed to re-install itself atop the CLE.  They had four years of all the love of the Sakai movers, shakers, board, and the former executive director and $3-4 Million dollars and yet they still failed.  Why are we then advocating to adopt their structure atop the CLE?

We do not want *any* money or *any* people with strings attached.  They turn out to be anchors that drag us down to our death.

Alan, I am not going to stand by silently let this happen a third time.  The hot--air merchants have had clear sailing in this community for four years and all they did was steer us onto the rocks.  Their time is at an end.

/Chuck


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai2-tcc/attachments/20120924/07fc04cc/attachment.html