[sakai2-tcc] Infrastructure discussion for future meeting?

[Anthony Whyte]

Steve--The Apereo IRG should focus its attention on developing a robust incubation process that encourages outside projects or products of the likes of a Class2Go or some other initiative featuring an independent codebase, development team and leadership structure to join the Apereo Community.  The IRG should avoid wasting time and energy on trying to mandate and/or police incubation/review processes or "quality checklists" for existing top-level projects like the CLE.  

A project like Class2Go--a purely hypothetical example--is a fit target for an IRG-led incubation process.  A new CLE service or tool is not.  We should leave it to the various Apereo software communities to both articulate and implement their own incubation/review/deprecation practices covering capabilities subordinate to and incorporated within existing top-level projects.           

If you think current CLE practices are deficient in these areas I recommend framing an actionable proposal and presenting it to your TCC colleagues for consideration.                    

Cheers,

Anth



On Mar 8, 2013, at 1:56 AM, Steve Swinsburg wrote:

> Are you saying that there will be no incubation process within Sakai, or that you will oppose it, or that it wont matter too much when the process comes along? If the latter then thats correct, it's not going to impact anyone any more than adhering to a few simple principles.
> 
> I dont see incubation being any barrier to forward progress either, it's simply a checklist of quality. We already have a number of requirements in place that people need to adhere to, e.g. not using incompatible licenses, making tools look roughly the same as the others, including i18n, ideally including help etc. Then to get tools into core we need committers and people running it in production etc. Those are already in place.
> 
> All the incubation process seeks to do is gather all of that and formalise it so that people wanting to get an existing tool into a sponsored state (e.g in to the core of CLE) know what standards need to be met in order for that to happen.
> 
> cheers,
> Steve
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Charles Severance <csev at umich.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Mar 7, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Noah Botimer wrote:
> 
>> But as far the CLE is concerned, I find the actual, present, technical and coordination demands within our project of much more interest. I don't think we have to wait for anything.
> 
> I talked extensively and directly with Ian about how incubation would affect Sakai.  I reminded him that during merger negotiations two years ago, incubation was characterized as additional resources rather than additional hoops or additional paperwork or some new authority layer.  He agreed and told me not to worry about incubation being a barrier to Sakai forward process.
> 
> I believe Ian.  So I have stopped worrying about it.   I am not wasting my time thinking about incubation *at all*.
> 
> /Chuck
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130309/96ee1ce7/attachment.html