2006-03-28 Agenda and Notes

Weekly Meeting Agenda for 28-Mar-2006

In attendance: Working team

Agenda

• from last week:
  • Duffy: I'll set up the meeting. Casey, Ray, Josh, Duffy, and Daisy
  • Marc: OK, Duffy and I will work on a roadmap that we can review next week
  • Duffy: I will send an email request to Glenn to put us in the svn root. ToDo
• iterative development timeline
  • from UI types: specs for top 1-2 use cases by May 1, iterate once a month from there?
  • Josh: possible pre-2.2 CM service and the LMS mapping service/post-2.2 course site management tool?
  • Josh: gradebook as client for iteration?
• April 5th meeting, who needs to be there?

Notes

from last week:

• Duffy: I'll set up the meeting. Casey, Ray, Josh, Duffy, and Daisy
  • there is an outstanding meeting request, but Lydia is going to follow up with Casey in person
  • move Stanford requirements convo back onto cm-wg
  • Marc: OK, Duffy and I will work on a roadmap that we can review next week
• Duffy: I will send an email request to Glenn to put us in the svn root. ToDo
  • Josh: we are in /contib for now and can keep working, req for another group..., 2.2 svn structure not yet set up (Glenn says two more weeks), need to wait on this and once we have a client would set up commit into trunk, possibly framework
  • Ray: this CM stuff shouldn't be under a single domain or indiv group
  • Josh: Glenn says something that is not a part of a single app, like JSF, is "framework" and has a separate set of committers
  • Ray: doesn't mean that a single person needs to be in charge of

iterative development timeline

• from UI types: specs for top 1-2 use cases by May 1, iterate once a month from there?
  • Ray: the time limiting factor is whatever presentation layer technologies we use, JSF is kind of slow
  • Oliver: there are two, Velocity too (if we are going to modify legacy tools)
  • Ray: thinking about using facelets, with GB had whole thing, broke it down, then bare-bones UI of CM data might be the first step
  • Josh: will help vet the service
  • Daphne: had meeting with Mara, seems like there 2 projects going on how do we provide something for you for API work
  • Ray: dumping some data will help a lot, just to be able to verify that the API work is gong in the right directory
  • Oliver: are there functional areas that just stand out?
  • Daphne: trying to keep design out of our mind as we are doing analysis, there are some data things that might send the wrong message and put design in a certain direction if it's too early
  • Ray: don't send that message, we can take a look but then not make foregone conclusions before the data is fully processed
  • Marc: plan A, B, C mantra
  • Duffy: just need not to treat code as put into stone, but can change
  • Daphne: design too
  • Marc: so do we have sign off on having wireframes (functionality chunked onto screens with basic workflows) on the 1-2 top use cases by May 1?
  • All: yes
  • Josh: in the meantime work on gradebook as client for, UCB needs it, its a top 25 REQ
  • Marc: so the scope of a GB client could be kept to May 1?
  • Ray: it's vague so it's flexible
  • Oliver: even if we just show the data, it would be a big win

• Josh: possible pre-2.2 CM service and the LMS mapping service/post-2.2 course site management tool?
  • Josh: pretty much just agreed to this, esp. to do the GB work, but it would stay pretty bare-bone
    Marc: so what about including code that's not tested and not touching production code
• Josh: gradebook as client for iteration?
  • Josh: for code to be included in the release, that doesn't have a client (GB)
    need the svn structure too
    once the group provider is in place, post 2.2 then there will need to be a lot of performance testing
    Ray: dev heads need to talk explaining/documenting the provider strategy so that integrators can easily test

April 5th meeting, who needs to be there?

• Duffy, Josh, Ray, Lydia and Daisy will be there
• Marc: what kind of connection do we need?
• All: phone is fine
• Oliver: is it a working assumption that Glenn will do all the framework work?
• Josh: no, we want to be doing the coding with Glenn's review, involvement.

Notetaker: Marc