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

[May, Megan Marie]

From: sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org [mailto:sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf Of Neal Caidin
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:39 PM
To: sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org Committee
Subject: [sakai2-tcc] Decisions input needed! - from today's TCC-CLECC, Wednesday, 2013 March 6

>From our meeting today. Summary notes. For those attending PLEASE feel free to add or amend if you think I missed any critical points (or ping me and let me know).

Several decisions are needed. Please look for the word DECISION next to items that NEED a decision (decision is not finalized, just using shorthand), below. Please note that rWiki was a pretty hot topic, as you probably are aware already. Please provide your input to decisions by Friday.


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

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.
No comment - deferring to those more knowledgeable

1c) FUTURE Discussion - Change process - In CLE 2.9.1 release, the release was at least in part delayed due to a performance issue. Getting this issue into the release increased the quality of 2.9.1 , at the expense of schedule. For the future, perhaps we should be clearer on making these choices, which is primarily quality vs schedule (it might involve one issue, or it might involve several).  I suggest we have a more explicit change process, building on TCC lazy consensus. Alan B. is in favor of exploring such an approach.  I'll create a straw person Change Process for TCC to consider.
Not quite sure what this means . . . I imagine the proposal will clear this up

2) INFORMATION - i18n chair - no discussion, just a big Thank You to Jean-François :-) for taking on this role. Already has been announced to i18n and l10n group.

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.

       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.
Nope

4) Additional surveys?
       FUTURE discussion - Neal suggesting a tools survey and a community participation survey. Alan B. suggested that we do the tools survey before the conference, and a community participation survey after the conference. Not much discussion on the call. I offered to do strawperson versions of these surveys, and also clarify the purpose of the surveys and bring that to the TCC. Having specifics might stimulate more conversation.

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.

Thanks,

Neal Caidin

Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org<mailto:nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org>
Skype: nealkdin
AIM: ncaidin at aol.com<mailto:ncaidin at aol.com>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai2-tcc/attachments/20130306/6d0e1458/attachment.html