2009-11-11 Product Council Meeting

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: Nov 11, 2009Version comment
2 min read

Phone number: 1 (812)856-7060
Internet: 156.56.240.9
Room code: 348#
Password: 72524#

Agenda

1. What we're prepared to say about Sakai 2 tools

2.7 Exercise

Attendees

  • Nate Angell
  • Michael Korcuska
  • Stephen Marquard
  • Clay Fenlason
  • John Norman
  • Noah Botimer
  • David Goodrum
  • John Lewis
  • Max Whitney

Minutes

  • technical review protocol
  • started by focusing on graduation to maintenance
  • questions for a production deployer
  • 4 categories of questions
  • not driving toward checkboxes, not quite a scorecard
  • general technical items, code maintenance and metrics, production worries, interoperability
  • looked at GB2 as a first pass, to see how onerous
  • used provisional criteria and scorecard to see what could be reused or added to
  • next steps: get PC to take a look and see if they feel reasonable
  • UX on a separate checklist? yes
  • didn't see questions about whether sakai participated in essential Sakai services (e.g. Search)
  • would like to get these things itemized, descriptive rather than necessarily dispositive
  • is this project introducing a new capability which should be supported by other tools?
  • this has become quite Sakai-2 specific so far, or can we carry this through to Sakai 3? May want to fork it on the level of detail.
  • would be an interesting exercise to do for Sakai 3 right now, to understand what the equivalents are on a similar set of principles.
  • several of these tools now have a relationship with the rSmart distribution ... if there are remarks to say from someone outside, should that just be plugged in?
  • approval process? emphasis on documentation, but the presumption is that things will go through unless something serious comes up during review and in community discussion
  • a bad idea to dilute the distribution aspect of our licensing
  • kernel a missing project? should it not be assessed as well?
  • really well down the path of doing independent tool releases if it's the case
  • a recommended profile of tools
  • with 2.7 we may already be close to a point where we could recommend a set or profile of tools.
  • what that might leave out is organizing QA around something
  • the recommended profile is X, and this is the testing profile for X and the binary for X
  • are you suggesting that we don't have a 2.7 release?
  • putting too much emphasis on whether it's in or out. The work that's gone on around the kernel is an opportunity to make clearer that a small core is Foundation supported.
  • takes time for independent releases to be factored into production patterns.
  • 2-week period to do review and come up with an unqualified yes or fallback positions.
  • what the release and QA roadmaps are
  • compare what's true now, in terms of people's ability to respond to criteria
  • facing consequences of date-driven release cycle
  • decisions are made based on what we're aware of at the time we make a decision
  • a different conversation about the lead time

Next Steps

  • Get Sakai 2 teams to run through the technical worksheet