[sakai2-tcc] Decisions input needed! - from today's TCC-CLECC, Wednesday, 2013 March 6

[Neal Caidin]

See my comments in red below.

- Neal

On Mar 6, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Steve Swinsburg <steve.swinsburg at gmail.com> wrote:

>> 
>> 1) CLE 2.9.2 
>> 
>> 1a ) DECISION - Schedule - see separate email sent to TCC from me, to make a final decision on the communication of the 2.9.2 schedule. Everyone on the call was supportive (+1). Making sure all on the TCC have a chance to chime in  by Friday.
> 
> +1 for timeline
> 
>> 
>> 1b) DECISION - Release process - The general sense seemed to be to try the way proposed by Matt Jones and Steve Swinsburg, to use revision numbers on the branch for testing iterations of the release, and not take the extra time to package the beta and release candidates with tags. We will still use the same system for tracking Jiras though. For example, we will use 2.9.2-rc01 issue in Jira for Version affected, it will simply apply to what is on QA server which we are labeling rc01, even though it is just a snapshot at a particular revision. Does that make sense?  Please say any concerns by Friday.
>> 
> 
> For this to work, the branch will need to bind to stable versions of artefacts and indies. At the moment everything is snapshots. That needs to change.
> For Jira, I'd be inclined to forget rc01/rc02, just use 2.9.2 [Tentative] and then based on the date it was fixed we know what we have. Its the same either way, we link a date with a revision, or a revision with a label in Jira.

> 
> 
>> 
>> 3) Survey Monkey survey - 
>>       3a)  DECISION - Need data clean up?  We had 104 responses but a dozen institutions have more than one response. On the call, the general feeling was that a cleanup is needed. It was pointed out that last year's survey was not cleaned up, by decision of TCC. About the same percentage of cleanup was needed (10 - 11%).  At least one factor in last year's decision was that an institution or two might have been answering based on OAE as the learning management system, whereas this year that is not a factor. Should I proceed with cleanup?  If I don't hear any feedback by Friday, I'll proceed with the cleanup.
> 
> If its only 10% then thats fine, but if you can easily identify the dupes, present a set of cleaned up data.
It will take a little bit of work, because I'll need to contact the institutions to find out which of the 2 or 3 entries I should keep and which I should delete. But it shouldn't be too bad. I would guess it will take about a week (duration) and an hour or two of work (sending about a dozen emails, getting information back, updating survey monkey). 

> 
>> 
>>       3b) DECISION - Publish to community as soon as possible?  From the phone call, the consensus is to publish the results as soon as they are available (after cleanup). I'm 100% in favor of this too.  Any concerns? Please speak by… you guessed it, Friday if you have a concern about publishing the results to the community after cleanup.
> 
> +1
> 
>> 
>> 5) HOT_TOPIC - rWiki  - no decisions made just general discussion and suggestions. Neal volunteers to do outreach and see if we can find pedogogical representatives for input. BOF at conference?  There was some discussion about kicking off a Private TCC discussion (copying CLECC on the thread). One option discussed is a TCC review of rWiki. Two TCC members, at least, think that if this happens it should be limited to a one month review, or it would not be a good use of time. We also discussed having more public discussion, which anyone can kick off at anytime. If we want BOF, we need to get a proposal in by March 11. Nobody assigned to do that at the moment.
> 
> What would a pedagogical representative add to the discussion? I though the problem was the lack of developer support?
> Will we have a pedagogical discussion around the outdated Syllabus tool?
The idea is to focus on the needs for teaching and learning. Perhaps other tools could serve the same or similar purpose? Or perhaps the priority of the needs is not critical to instructors' overall pedagogy?  I think I see your point about looking at the tool in isolation. The feedback would not necessarily  be all the things that are wrong with the tool, but what are the use cases involved. Not sure. But personally I don't see a harm in identifying pedagogical resources and starting a discussion. Naturally have to be careful about setting expectations. We wouldn't want a group of folks thinking they were providing the CLE "development team" with a set of requirements which would be addressed, since that will just make for frustration all the way around. 

> 
> Note that a review of tools is coming in the incubation process, but will be a while off. Timeline is that incubation process will be in draft form at conference for discussion and refinement, then worked on a bit more until being ratified by the Board. People will be interviewed in the process so please let me know if you are interested in participating.
> 
> My concern is that you'll get skewed results if you just look at one tool in isolation, without a benchmark.  I could find a million things wrong with any tool and paint a grim picture.
> 
> Perhaps the CLE tool scorecard could be used in the interim? I am bringing that to the incubation process anyway as a starting point for a lightweight review.
> 
> cheers,
> Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai2-tcc/attachments/20130306/94f9a608/attachment-0001.html