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

[Jean-Francois Leveque]

On 06/03/2013 18:39, Neal Caidin wrote:
>  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 (confirming call support)

> 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.

+1, as long as bind to stable versions of artefacts and indies is done.

> 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.

Maybe this could be decided for each minor release whether the focus 
will be performance or schedule. As far as 2.9.2 is concerned, I suggest 
to choose schedule.

> 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.

Please don't do this now. I'm not too big to fail. I gladly welcome 
quarter evaluations and advice between evaluations to help me doing good 
work.

Maybe we need a community process for appointing someone to this role 
should I need to be replaced later.

> 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.

+1 for 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.

+1 again

> 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.

+1 for the suggestion
We have to carefully build an inclusive list of tools before the survey.

> 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.

About the review, my opinion (I'm one of the two) is it it should be 
over by April 5th. Otherwise, we will wait for volunteers and wait for 
the review to be over and realize it's not at the conference start.

Another review could be done later if we know about need and resources 
available to keep a working wiki in CLE.

> 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>