[sakai2-tcc] Proposal: eliminate all indies, re-version trunk to CLE 4.0

[May, Megan Marie]

While the idea was mentioned a couple time, my recollection was that there wasn't a substantial conversation about moving to a CLE 4.0 version.   When we talked about future releases -  they were 2.9.3 and 2.10's.

I'm not saying I'm against this proposal but I do want there to be dialogue about it and what it means.  For example, I've seen comments indicating that we should use that as an opportunity to move to github  (which the TCC discussed & recommended that now was not the time). 

Megan


-----Original Message-----
From: sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org [mailto:sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Whyte
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:14 PM
To: David Adams; Severance Charles
Cc: sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org Committee
Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] Proposal: eliminate all indies, re-version trunk to CLE 4.0

Right on David Adams.  As for Chuck's comments:

> I wish we had separated the "lets fix the indies" from "what version to use"

We can't, we are dealing with a symbiotic relationship here.  First, we have an indie versioned 3.0.  Second, the 4.0 concept was discussed in San Diego and not immediately shot down so it remains on the table.  We need to discuss it now so that we get the pom changes right without having to seek further clarification.
   
> My problem with Sakai 4.0 is dishonesty.   We have spent a lot of time undoing the damage done by those who felt that marketing and symbolic gestures were good strategies to draw resources to a project.

Dashboard, ElasticSearch, Keitei, LTI 2.0, tincanapi, Samigo improvements, key library upgrades, eliminating indies, simplifying the build, etc. -- no substance . . . another round of symbolic gestures bordering on dishonesty?  I'm with David Adam, all these changes read like a 4.0 to me.

> We just got the community to be mostly on the same release - we tell leading schools to plan for an upgrade from 2.9.2 to 4.0 next June - most will never upgrade as it will sound difficult and risky.  

If the community considers CLE 4.0 a compelling release, they will upgrade.

> We should be conservative and let next year be 2.10 (communicating clearly that this is an easy upgrade) and then take the bolder step two years from now.


Like David Adams I am persuaded that there's enough on the table to justify bumping up the major version.  Holding off bumping versions in favor of the promise of some as yet undefined "bolder step" (sakai.X?) rings hollow in my ears.  We should set a new tone now.  I wager the community will respond positively.

CLE 4.0 Dashboard, ElasticSearch, Keitei, LTI 2.0, tincanapi, Samigo improvements, key library upgrades, eliminating indies, simplifying the build CLE 5.0 undefined "bolder step" two years from now (sakai.X?).

As for CLE 10, good fun but I consider it a bad idea to tie a version to a calendar year.  You fail to deliver it in said calendar year and you embarrass yourself.  You fail to deliver something new in the following year or two and people start asking themselves why am I still using something that is stamped "Hi, I am two years old, please continue to use me."

Anth

> 
> The Moodle 1.x to 2.x was a painful transition and people stayed away 
> from upgrading for about two years as the 2.0 product bounced back and 
> forth and finally stabilized around 2.2 - nobody wants to buy a car 
> build on a Monday - who wants
> 
> "Sakai 3" was vastly overhyped - the further away the community is away from the TCC - the more they will assume that there is substance to the "4.0" moniker.   The people the furthest away are the most easily confused by little things and the most difficult to de-confuse.  I expect that once we get outside this group - most will immediately assume that Sakai 4 is the revamped OAE + Sakai in Hybrid mode - that we resurrected hybrid mode.
> 
> In this era of cloud computing and live deployment - version numbers are less and less how to communicate project vitality.
> 
> We just got the community to be mostly on the same release - we tell leading schools to plan for an upgrade from 2.9.2 to 4.0 next June - most will never upgrade as it will sound difficult and risky.  We should be conservative and let next year be 2.10 (communicating clearly that this is an easy upgrade) and then take the bolder step two years from now.
> 
> With all that said, the 2.10 release is shaping up to be pretty impressive if all goes well.  It should have Mobile, Elastic Search, and Dashboard - all pretty impressive steps forward and bordering on a major version number in celebration of that cool progress.
> 
> My recommendation is to stick with 2.10 for next year's release and then the following year release 3.0 after a year of tightening and cleanup.   By then the "Sakai 3" issue will be quite fades and OAE should be on a nice upward success curve.
> 
> Oh yea and change the msgcntr maven coordinates.
> 
> /Chuck





On Jun 18, 2013, at 9:31 AM, David Adams wrote:

> I strongly support the idea to move to "4.0" and go with 4.1 and 4.2 
> as patch releases. If there's a transition to Github and a focus on 
> new ways of doing things, then going to a new version number is the 
> right move to communicate that. Couple that with "3.0" being a major 
> confusion-generator, and 4.0 is the right choice.
> 
>> We just got the community to be mostly on the same release - we tell 
>> leading schools to plan for an upgrade from 2.9.2 to 4.0 next June - most will never upgrade as it will sound difficult and risky.
>> We should be conservative and let next year be 2.10 (communicating 
>> clearly that this is an easy
>> upgrade) and then take the bolder step two years from now.
> 
> I don't think this makes any sense. In any case, it can be gotten 
> around by making the upgrade easier than ever, and announcing that as 
> one of the improvements in 4.0. Moving to 3.0 or 4.0 will make no more 
> sense next year than it does now.
> 
>> With all that said, the 2.10 release is shaping up to be pretty 
>> impressive if all goes well.  It should have Mobile, Elastic Search, 
>> and Dashboard - all pretty impressive steps forward and bordering on a major version number in celebration of that cool progress.
> 
> All these changes scream for a new major version number, IMO. Fixing 
> mobile and search are huge improvements.
> 
> David Adams
> Director, Systems Integration and Support Virginia Tech Learning 
> Technologies _______________________________________________
> 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