[sakai2-tcc] Planning for Sakai 2.10 and beyond

[Steve Swinsburg]

Chuck, none of the things you have suggested that I have said are actually what I am saying. You have misinterpreted my post and comments. I do *not* want an overarching governance model that gets in the way of progress. I just want direction for the CLE. Direction that is informed by the community and sets goals and a roadmap for all to see, and reinvigorates the project. I haven't changed my position, this was always what I suggested.

I responded to your board post. Again, the creation of such a group is news to me and is not the direction we should take and I have never advocated that.

I'm glad you agree we should potentially rename the TCC. I am happy for the TCC to evolve into being the group that does the leadership for the CLE. In my post I said that the TCC should not do this and a separate group should do it, purely because the TCC in its current form is technical. If we evolve, then we can drop the technical only portion, become the Sakai CLE Steering Committee, and handle both strategy and technical aspects of the project. That is not at odds with that I called for originally.  We should review membership at this time to ensure we are accurately represented. 

We also need to do a better job of engaging the community early.

There is no conspiracy with Apereo or the merger, or anything. I have no secret motives. I am passionate about the CLE and don't want to see it fall apart. And for that to happen, we need direction. That is all.

thanks,
Steve


On 25/09/2012, at 9:49 AM, Charles Severance <csev at umich.edu> wrote:

> I am not asking you to change your blog post.  That would be wrong.   The discussions is fine and we all learn from debate.  I am glad to have the positions on record.  But you should clarify what you intended or if the discussion changed your position it would be nice to acknowledge that.
> 
> I did just send a note to the board asking you to go on record as to whether or not you will vote for or against creating an intermediate governance group that sits between the TCC and the Apereo board should the merger go through.
> 
> The TCC *should* be renamed to reflect the Apereo naming structure once the Apereo merger is done.  It makes perfect sense.   So it should be:
> 
> uPortal Steering Committee
> Sakai CLE Steering Committee (renamed form the TCC)
> Sakai OAE Steering Committee 
> Sakai T/L Steering Committee
> CAS Steering Committee 
> Bedework Steering Committee
> ...
> 
> And the Sakai CLE Steering Committee should expand its remit to match the uPortal and CAS Steering committees.
> 
> What is unacceptable to me is
> 
> uPortal Steering Committee
> Sakai Steering Committee (new people to be picked by the Apereo board)
>    Sakai CLE TCC
>    Sakai OAE
>    Sakai T/L
> 
> Steve - this is important - it matters - if the net result of the Apereo merger is to secretly re-create the Sakai Product Council - that is bad - very very bad.  It is particularly troubling coming from a member of the Apereo founding board that is also a member of the TCC.  If you truly think that the Product Council was a great idea that was never given a fair chance - and that we should recreate it in Apereo - then please say so on the record.  Please be clear.
> 
> /Chuck
> 
> On Sep 24, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Steve Swinsburg wrote:
> 
>> I don't think I should be forced to withdraw my suggestions, that isn't what this free and open community is all about. In any case, what I called for, and what you think I called for, are very different approaches.
>> 
>> I never said the TCC was incapable of anything non-technical. I said that it should not be muddied by this task. By its very nature and name, the TCC *is* technical. I know the reasons behind the name, I was there. However if this group, the TCC, is the group that undertakes the community consultation, develops the roadmap, and rallies resources to get things done (the things that I have said we need to do), then so be it, but we should change the name of this group to better reflect the role that the group is taking.
>> 
>> regards,
>> Steve
>> 
>> 
>> On 25/09/2012, at 3:00 AM, Charles Severance <csev at umich.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 24, 2012, at 12:56 PM, Nate Angell wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I move we all drop further discussion of that chapter and only talk
>>>> about what we are going to do next.
>>> 
>>> I am happy to drop all further discussion about the past as long as Steve withdraws his suggestion that we recreate the PC or something similar because he sees the TCC as incapable of doing anything non-technical (as he states in his blog post).
>>> 
>>> /Chuck
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai2-tcc/attachments/20120925/0a8efa0f/attachment.html