2006-10-03 Agenda and Notes

Weekly Meeting Agenda for October 3, 2006

Call-in Phone Number: +1 (734) 647-8166
Code: 1620
In attendance: ???
Notetaker: Duffy

Agenda

• from last time
  • Stanford's Local Admin requirements follow-up, put into Sakai terminology/scope (Marc still to do this work)
  • Oliver, Marc and Duffy need to meet to figure out project management (schedule for this afternoon)
• new business
  • now that Gradebook, Roster, Section Info, Site Info and Home tools will all have their own sets of documents and some have existing Confluence sites, where do we put them all? In CM space, in separate spaces?
  • related question with Jira issues
  • what are the main dependencies with respect to tool work
    • on design work
    • on CM services
    • on committing code to trunk

(please see Oliver's email for more questions that could be raised, but this is an attempt at a more reasonable chunk for this meeting)

Notes

in attendance:
Oliver
Josh
Lydia
Marc
Duffy
Daisy
Daphne
Judy

old business:

still in conversation at Stanford about local admins
redistribution of project management discussion this afternoon b/n Marc, Oliver and Duffy

new business:

other than gradebook, should we keep stuff in cm space? (marc)

• what if we just link into cm from other sites (daphne)
• suggestion that we go the other way - link to external tools (josh? oliver?)
  • don't want to interrupt continuity of other projects
    • they are clients of CM
    • can link to them from CM
    • keep their own sites and include their needs from CM as part of their requirements
      need to surface the scope/location of work implied in UI designs - wizards etc. - that are implied in Marc's design docs. Are they separate projects? Are they requirements on other projects?
• Home tool will probably be its own contrib (Marc) - depends on CM, but the inverse is not true
  • We need a better sense of that tool (oliver) - is it a config option for admins? how does it get wires up to CM?
  • Maybe we should do a show and tell of the work done (daphne)
    put on agenda for next week (marc) - should perhaps announce to community to get more eyes on it?
    Agreement that keeping continuity of existing Confluence spaces makes sense. We should make sure the CM aspects of these projects become very clear. Old documents are still being viewed as current.
• need to trust other site owners to keep current
• should inform them when they're not on top of CM information
• who to contact?
  • Oliver owns gradebook and section info. Who owns roster?
    • discussion w/ Lance scheduled (oliver). UCB would like to handle requirements and initial UI design. Kristol will have some sign off and work w/ IU developer
      Back to site info - strategy for handling public side of that
• is site info work a wizard? how does it integrate? is this a change to site info or an optionally configurable piece?
  • should maintain backward compat. (marc) to be in trunk
  • Daisy, Lydia and Josh have site-manage svn access - but need to be sensitive to other's needs - worst piece of Sakai code. Low confidence in this code. It will likely require Mich's help (josh)
    • is it worth branching that section (marc)?
    • we should add a check to see if CM is configured (josh) use the old UI if not
      • could this be implemented as a "helper" (josh)?
      • more investigation of "helper" tools needed
      • was originally a velocity piece - rSmart may have created a wrapper
      • this is not a pain-point for UCB; this stuff can be displayed as a flat list
        • this is a change to what we agreed to (marc)
    • need to make changes to the assumptions about section Ids (josh)
      offer to host a Sakai 2.3 instance for CM group examples (duffy)
      what about CM Browser admin tool? this was to be potentially the guts of a helper tool - whether or not we touch the siteaction code (marc)
• agreed (duffy,josh)
• can we use this as a test, the try to surgically build a helper? (marc) it seems the only agreeable way forward
• agreed, but this is pretty speculative at this point (josh)
  what is needed in terms of negotiating with Michigan? Glenn and whoever works under John Lesia?
• it should be fine (lydia) they are very responsive
• it seems UCB prefers not to be in this mess? (marc) in terms of carving project:
  • daisy the main stanford person
  • duffy works w/ daisy on plan to approach changes
  • base it on CM browser prototype
    oliver - questions about where design work is at? (marc)
• b/n roster, section info, gradebook, where are we? where can we get started? need to start building out clients now
• coordination needs to happen quickly, esp. with the IU collaboration - need to know where to start
• currently working on section info screenshots and marking them up (daphne) - will make it more of a priority knowing that * UCB is ready
• gradebook relies heavily on section info, so it is most important (josh)
• draft by end of day tomorrow (daphne) - planning a meeting for thurs.
  decisions made last week about combination of registrar and manual data (marc)
• until there are some features in the group provider these things cannot be reconciled
• crosslisting is a problem with this feature - can't reconcile when someone joins the course before they come through SIS data (marc)
• concern about adding people manually and how they get reconciled when they later show up in SIS data (marc) - can you add them to sections?
  • issue recap: current section info solution - you can toggle state of site to respect SIS w/ reconciliation, or unlink them. can only manually move people around if you unlink. worry is that this could be a serious problem if you need to manually move people around and yet have SIS provided data. (oliver)
  • can have manually added sections and SIS sections as long as they are different types of sections (daphne)
  • lots to be worked out with this - you create a lab, then SIS reports labs, etc. (josh) we should document all of this in UI.

oliver, marc, duffy carve up project management

• cm browser/wizard - build cm browser and approach michigan with proposal for changes
• progress on changes to group provider from josh? (marc) perhaps email?
  • nothing yet (josh) - ongoing conversation with glenn
  • needs design work and commitment by someone to take it on
  • seems like it should be put off - we don't need them yet
  • will hear from oliver after IU conversation

Josh will help with 2.3 test server at UA
local JDBC impl of CM at UCB upcoming
90 min. conference proposal made for CM update
40 min. conference proposal by Josh on setting up 2.3 for CM