[sakai2-tcc] Summary - TCC - CLECC, Wednesday, May 1, 10 am Eastern Daylight/ 2 pm GMT
Noah Botimer
botimer at umich.edu
Fri May 3 09:23:41 PDT 2013
I have to say that I think this is pretty simple and has very little to do with the commit log at this level.
If Neal, who has worked pretty definitively on coordinating the community to *release the software*, thinks there are one or two exceptional contributions that absolutely made *this release* happen in a way that saved us or gives some big boost, I think that's fine. The day-to-days are part of open source and part of the public record. It will be obvious to those who have interest to look.
I really hope our contributor egos are not so fragile that we need to be listed individually or institutionally in the special thanks section every time we do what we have all worked very hard to do, together.
Let me give a quick example. I think all on the TCC are very grateful for the work that Matt and Sam (or Aaron, or Steve, or whoever) have done -- release after release -- but I would also bet that a personal "hey, thanks" holds more weight and wastes less bits than filling out a section in the release notes that says "and, for the Xth time, we give special thanks to Y for doing the stuff they always do by special skill or feelings of duty".
It's nice to be appreciated but let's forego institutionalizing perpetual, all-inclusive ceremony.
Thanks,
-Noah
P.S., if I'm wrong and I've slighted someone, let me know. I'm quite glad to offer code reviews or lend a hand or cover a round -- those are the kinds of recognition I prefer to give and receive, and the kind I've found the self-motivated types working in the bazaar to appreciate and remember.
On May 3, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Anthony Whyte wrote:
> Github rocks but privileging us committers is precisely what this exercise should avoid. I takes more than committers to make a release or move this community forward.
>
> Steve underestimates what it will take to surface everyone who has had a hand in producing 2.9.2. I guarantee you will miss people and combing through Jira tickets in order to build a thank you list I do not regard as the best use of Neal's time.
>
> If people think it vital that we recognize contributors individually then crowd-source the discovery task. Operate off the trust principle. Create a 2.9.2 contributors page. Follow up with several emails and a tweet or two inviting folks who have helped with the release to self-identify or list others that they now have contributed.
>
> Neal limits his role to list curation and communications.
>
>
> Anth
>
>
> On May 3, 2013, at 11:13 AM, David Adams wrote:
>
>> As an aside in re another discussion about the benefits of Github, if Sakai were using Github and required patch submissions to come in via merge requests, building a list of code contributors would be trivial.
>>
>> David Adams
>> Director, Systems Integration and Support
>> Virginia Tech Learning Technologies
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Neal Caidin <nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org> wrote:
>> I don't know how to do that. If someone can provide that list then I'll run it by Ian D.
>>
>> It still won't cover non-code contributions, and won't hit all the QA testers, documenters, etc.. Many do participate in Jiras but many do not (I suspect).
>>
>> There is no perfect solution. It's a much more complex problem than it appears on the surface, I think. Or at least requires many person hours to figure out.
>>
>> -- Neal
>>
>>
>> On May 3, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Steve Swinsburg <steve.swinsburg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with listing only institutions is that:
>>> 1. A person might be employed by an institution as their day job but actually do the work in their own time after hours.
>>> 2. A person might not be from an institution so you will need to list it like University ABC, School XYZ and John Smith.
>>>
>>> It is a little harder but IMO you should just find everyone who participated in a Jira or committed some code related to 2.9 and list everyone in alphabetical order. Seeing a big number of people will do more than seeing a handful of institutions.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Neal Caidin <nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org> wrote:
>>> I'm discussing with Ian Dolphin. Two ideas that seem likely are to post on a web page and have displayed between sessions at the Open Apereo Conference (b?). I'll keep you posted and/or Ian will.
>>>
>>> -- Neal
>>>
>>> On May 2, 2013, at 1:02 PM, "May, Megan Marie" <mmmay at indiana.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I appreciate the summary J
>>>>
>>>> The acknowledgments . . . have you decided how that will be done?
>>>>
>>>> Megan
>>>>
>>>> From: sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org [mailto:sakai2-tcc-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Jones
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:44 AM
>>>> To: Neal Caidin
>>>> Cc: sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org Committee
>>>> Subject: Re: [sakai2-tcc] Summary - TCC - CLECC, Wednesday, May 1, 10 am Eastern Daylight/ 2 pm GMT
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the info, I agree every two weeks seems to have the right amount of content. I believe there were 5-6 attendees on the call and the time was already mentioned to be bad for Megan, so a Doodle pool to see if there is a new better time is a good idea, as we've been though a time change and it's been 6 months.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Neal Caidin <nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> * Discussed CLE 2.9.2 status - want to get an rc02 out as soon as possible. Talked about some specifics, etc.
>>>>
>>>> * Acknowledgments - the recommendation from the group that was on the phone was to keep it really simple - just a list of institutions that have contributed to 2.9 in any significant way. I'm inclined to go with this recommendation, at least for the conference, for a number of reasons - one is because the conference is almost here and there isn't much more time to work on granularity. The discussion was around that the more granular we go, the bigger the risk of offending someone due to perceived unfairness or under appreciation, etc. I still think it may be worth exploring greater granularity, and what metrics could be gathered, but likely to need quite a bit of vetting, discussion, etc. Plus, it is a big effort, potentially.
>>>>
>>>> * Tools survey - see other TCC thread - I'm going to try and whip up a quick survey for TCC to review. It will focus only on tools in the core system that are used for teaching and learning, not administrative tools. TCC is wanting to provide a query that could be run instead of , or in addition to , to the survey to provide information on tool use.
>>>>
>>>> * Jira management - just general discussion. Suggestion was made to get feedback from CLE team, which I will do.
>>>>
>>>> * Confluence cleanup- did not get to this agenda item. Will put on agenda for next TCC - CLECC meeting in two weeks (May 15).
>>>>
>>>> * I will send out Doodle poll soon to see if we can find a new time to accommodate everyone. It's been a while since the last poll to pick this time and things may have changed.
>>>>
>>>> Btw, meeting every two weeks is feeling about right to me. Better than meeting every week. I think once a month might be too little and would like to stick with this schedule for now, if that's okay?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neal Caidin
>>>>
>>>> Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
>>>> nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org
>>>> Skype: nealkdin
>>>> AIM: ncaidin at aol.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 1, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Neal Caidin <nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Add Confluence clean up to agenda.
>>>>
>>>> B
>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Neal Caidin <nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Open meeting - non-TCC welcome to attend
>>>>
>>>> When: Wednesday, May 1 (tomorrow), 10 am Eastern Daylight/ 2 pm GMT
>>>>
>>>> Proposed Agenda:
>>>>
>>>> * CLE 2.9.2 status
>>>> * Acknowledgements (Institutional) for conference. Status and how to move forward (level of detail/granularity; challenges of time [conference almost here]; identifying quantity / quality, etc). Trying to simplify Acknowledgements so we can be ready for the conference. Still would be good to identify special key contributions.
>>>> * Tools survey - time permitting. See below.
>>>> * Jira management - ongoing feedback requested on how CLECC can best contribute to cleaning up/managing Jira.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TCC, any agenda ideas?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Teleconference information (Calliflower)
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Default Dial-in Number:+1-323-375-2185
>>>>
>>>> Your Conference Code: 8600146
>>>>
>>>> Join Online:
>>>> http://www.calliflower.com
>>>>
>>>> Find a Dial in number in your city:
>>>> https://apps.calliflower.com/account/call_in_numbers?organizer=328940
>>>>
>>>> Skype:
>>>> Add ‘calliflowerskype’ as a contact in Skype. You can then call Calliflower directly from Skype.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tools Survey idea
>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Tools Survey idea
>>>>
>>>> Potential goals of a tools survey:
>>>>
>>>> * Highlight tools that are available in Sakai CLE but which many in the community might not be as aware of. For example, LTI.
>>>> * Get a sense of the impact of stealthing or removing the rWiki tool
>>>> * Identify potential institutions or individuals who have an interest in helping maintain various tools (like rWiki, but could be other tools that need attention as well)
>>>> * Make clear the status of the Gradebook 2 tool (my understanding is that it is built on technology with incompatible licensing with CLE?)
>>>> * Make visible the requirements of the Assignments vs Assignments 2 tools.
>>>> * Get a sense of the use of Contrib tools. Again with the idea that out of this might come some additional resources for development, as well as helping to identify needs
>>>> * Get a sense of implicit, explicit or emerging requirements and needs overall
>>>>
>>>> Or, as Steve Swinsburg says, maybe a simple survey will work for rWiki:
>>>>
>>>> "A simple survey would do here:
>>>> 1. Do you use the wiki (y/n)
>>>> 2. What so you use it for (options)
>>>> 3. If the wiki went away, how sad would you be (really sad, a bit sad, meh, I'd just use another tool, I hate the wiki)"
>>>>
>>>> CLECC goal is to generate conversation and strategies for information that would be helpful input to the TCC in decision making processes wrt tool needs, and to get input from the community.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Neal Caidin
>>>>
>>>> Sakai CLE Community Coordinator
>>>> nealcaidin at sakaifoundation.org
>>>> Skype: nealkdin
>>>> AIM: ncaidin at aol.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130503/9a70ba43/attachment-0001.html
More information about the sakai2-tcc
mailing list