[sakai2-tcc] Sakai CLE survey

Thu Jan 17 06:34:17 PST 2013

Sounds good. Always good to ask "Why" you are asking a survey question and what you will do with the data. I appreciate you brought that up. Easy to forget when digging into details.

In that spirit, of understanding why, how will we use the demographic data ?  I can think of a few possibilities:

* Ensure that there are not duplicate responses for institutions
* Follow up contact email to notify when the results of the survey are complete. A bonus for filling out the survey is early notification of the results.

How will we use the data from this question: "Are you the institutional representative for your institution?"

If we don't use it, we shouldn't bother asking. If we do have a purpose, would be good to know what it is, so we can make sure that this question is worded properly. I remember being confused about how to answer this one.

Thanks!
Neal

On Jan 17, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Anthony Whyte <arwhyte at umich.edu> wrote:

> I suspect the thrust of the original question was to query the community regarding their use of community release tags.  If it was found that few save the occasional adopter resorted to a tagged release but chose the maintenance branch route, taking code at a chosen revision, we might conclude that the energy expended on generating releases was not worth the effort. 
> 
> So consider revising the question as follows:
> 
> 5. As you plan your next CLE upgrade do you intend to base it upon an official community release?
>   Yes, we plan to base our upgrade on a community release (e.g. 2.7.1, 2.8.2, 2.9.0, etc.)
>   No, we base our upgrade work on maintenance branch code (e.g. 2.7.x, 2.8.x, 2.9.x, etc.) taken at a specific revision point 
>   Other (e.g., upgrade from trunk, custom local build, custom SCA build)
> 
> Note: as noted earlier the original question sets up a false equivalency between the options.  Maintenance branch or "other" code is not the same as tagged release code.  I dropped the word tag above and I don't think the question requires the additional options you propose; I think it adds unnecessary detail. 
> 
> Consider taking text from your proposed Q5 options and working it into Q7 (a question which should be re-ordered to appear before Q5 actually).
>> 
>> * An official release (tag) of 2.9 (2.9.0, 2.9.1, etc)
>> * An official release (tag) of 2.8 (2.8.0, 2.8.1, 2.8.2, etc)
>> * An older release, no longer supported (tag), 2.7 or earlier (2.7.1, 2.6.3, etc)
>> * Maintenance branch (e.g. 2.9.x, 2.8.x, 2.7.x, etc). (note: branches are not supported)
>> * Other unsupported code base (trunk, custom local build, custom SCA build)
> 
> 
> 
> 7. What Sakai CLE version are you planning to upgrade to?
>  2.5 or earlier
>  2.6
>  2.7
>  2.8 (community-supported)
>  2.9 (community-supported)
>  Other unreleased version
>  No upgrade is currently planned
> 
> to
> 
> 7. What Sakai CLE version are you planning to upgrade to?
>  2.9 [List first]
>  2.8
>  An older version, no longer supported by the community (2.7.1, 2.6.3, etc.)
>  Other unsupported code base (trunk, custom local build, custom SCA build)
>  No upgrade is currently planned
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Anth
> 
> 
> On Jan 17, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Neal Caidin wrote:
> 
>> And the answer would need to separate out tags which are supported from tags which are not supported. Boy, this is more involved than I expected!
>> 
>> Answers:
>> 
>> * An official release (tag) of 2.9 (2.9.0, 2.9.1, etc)
>> * An official release (tag) of 2.8 (2.8.0, 2.8.1, 2.8.2, etc)
>> * An older release, no longer supported (tag), 2.7 or earlier (2.7.1, 2.6.3, etc)
>> * Maintenance branch (e.g. 2.9.x, 2.8.x, 2.7.x, etc). (note: branches are not supported)
>> * Other unsupported code base (trunk, custom local build, custom SCA build)
>> 
>> 
>> Unfortunately many folks will have no idea what we are talking about, but hopefully the person answering the form will understand, or if not, they need to ask their team to find out. It will be good for them!
>> 
>> 
>> -- Neal
>> 
>> On Jan 17, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque <jean-francois.leveque at upmc.fr> wrote:
>> 
>>> When you perform your next Sakai CLE upgrade, which code base will you use ?
>>> 
>>> J-F
>>> 
>>> On 17/01/2013 14:25, Anthony Whyte wrote:
>>>> "t. . . type of a Sakai release . . ." is poor phrasing.  The maintenance branch does not equate to a Sakai release irrespective of how some schools like to use it.
>>>> 
>>>> Anth
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 17, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Neal Caidin wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I would say that what you are describing seems based on an official release tag. Probably most institutions add fixes, extra tools or update tools. An example of the custom/other I think would be what Rutgers did, when they took a non-official release tag of 2.9 and based their instance on that. I think Rice did the same thing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Maybe the wording should say:
>>>>> 
>>>>> What type of Sakai release will your upgrade be based on?
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Neal
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 17, 2013, at 5:28 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque<jean-francois.leveque at upmc.fr>  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I only have one question.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 16/01/2013 22:40, Anthony Whyte wrote:
>>>>>>> Suggested edits to last year's survey:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5. What type of Sakai release do you use? -->  When you perform your next
>>>>>>> Sakai CLE upgrade, what code will you use?
>>>>>>> Official release tag (e.g. 2.6.3, 2.7.1, 2.8.2, 2.9.0, etc.)
>>>>>>> Maintenance branch code (e.g. 2.7.x, 2.8.x, etc.)
>>>>>>> Other (trunk, custom local build, custom SCA build)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Note: the original question sets up a false equivalency between the
>>>>>>> options. Maintenance branch or "other" code is not the same as tagged
>>>>>>> release code.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If the code I use is based on an official release tag but I add fixes,
>>>>>> extra tools, or update tools, how much change is needed to make it a
>>>>>> "custom local build" Other ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Anth
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> J-F
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Charles Severance wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes - this is a good idea. It should be the Sakai CLE survey.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> /Chuck
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>>>>>> -AZ
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Neal Caidin
>>>>>>>>> <nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Based on TCC discussion today, I would presume the best course of
>>>>>>>>>> action is
>>>>>>>>>> to remove OAE from the survey this time around (as an option for
>>>>>>>>>> upgrading
>>>>>>>>>> instead of, or hybrid to CLE). Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> If so, then just a couple of minor questions and the survey will be
>>>>>>>>>> ready
>>>>>>>>>> for TCC review and community consumption.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Neal
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20130117/124f9a97/attachment-0001.html 