2009-11-25 Product Council Meeting

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: Nov 25, 2009Version comment
2 min read

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

Agenda

1. Decision Point

Non-controversial:

  • Licensing concerns with Gradebook2 remove it from consideration for now
  • Site Stats should go ahead
  • User-facing features of conditional release are not ready in their current state, but the service should be available for other tools to participate
  • BasicLTI has acquired additional institutional commitment from UCT, which addresses the main concern about including it
  • TinyURLService raises technical concerns that have not been adequately reviewed

The somewhat controversial:

  • What should be our approach for ratcheting up maintenance criteria, with the end goal being a maintenance team?
  • If TinyURLService is not in, what are the options for Profile2?
  • Profile2 raises worries about institutional commitment to maintenance

2.7 Exercise
Profile2 institutional adoption

Attendees

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

Minutes

  • clarification on CR options
  • About maintenance team: don't want to do too many things at once
  • tinyURLservice - how tight the coupling is, hasn't come under enough scrutiny.
  • Profile2 just uses it for twitter integration?
  • Could it be used only for Profile2?
  • Can we turn that into "This is what it would take for the concerns to go away?" statement?
    • if it was bundled in profile2 as a private service
    • or if community could come to consensus on service (concern about not signalling that general services are more trouble than they're worth)
    • problem needs to be addressed correctly - best option is if Profile2 can work without tinyURL
    • if profile2 can find another URL shortening service available
  • Is CR the same or different?
  • take tinyURL through technical architectural review process
  • who will do this review? what would next steps be?
  • if another project were seeking to use that service would help with confidence.
  • still leaves institutional commitment question
  • let's set a deadline (two weeks?) for a statement or demonstration of patches coming in?
  • should check that against release management team?
  • not yet a release date
  • chicken or egg about feature set vs. release timetable
  • compatibility changes for Gradebook2? yes, but not really PC issue.
  • does make sense to enumerate things GB2 should be addressing.
  • Max volunteering to summarize tinyURL review effort

Next Steps