2010-1-27 Product Council Meeting

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: May 14, 2010Version comment
3 min read

6pm GMT / 1pm EST

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

Agenda

  1. Review of projects in incubation
    • Sorting out K2, Groups and Sakai 3
    • Assignments 2
  2. PC report and goals for the next 6 months (Nate)
  3. How to help encourage/communitize NYU's big push?
  4. Accessibility WG statement (Eli)
  5. K2 roadmap (Max)

Attendees

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

Development Efforts formally considered
SPC Report for January 2010
NYU Sakai 3 Vision Statement

Minutes

  • Proposal: remove K2 and Groups as separate incubated projects, and replace with holistic Sakai 3
  • Is this a recognition of the fact that the kernel has become something of a misnomer - that it is not a light kernel in a proper sense, just the whole lump of back-end services?
  • a good question, but this is not deliberate - we simply haven't spent the time to think about what the right ring is to draw around a kernel
  • OSGi bundle architecture should allow us to do that in future, and we could certainly have a discussion around that. Just not a priority right now - lack of time driving a lot of decisions
  • no formal disagreement with the proposal to arrange incubated projects
  • K2 roadmap has recently appeared, and it's very helpful. But how seriously should one take the dates?
  • dates are firm, but the scope is fickle. Bigger the problem area is the more optimistic the estimate
  • Our approach to something like Sakai 3 as a whole is going to be very different from what we've done so far: we're talking about bootstrapping from nothing
  • Sakai 3 is also so big that we shouldn't be wedded to the idea of keeping everything together as this unfolds over the course of 18 months or more. Some things may spin off naturally
  • That may be true, but it's dangerous to start with those kinds of assumptions, and historically we've erred too far in that direction.
  • we can think of things like a project family with subprojects
  • PC report on its activities and the goals its going to set itself for the next 6 months
  • Need to think about how PC practice will differ with Sakai 3. With S2 the focus has been on consistency and integrating into a broader framework
  • S3 project has set out milestones, should we not use those as reference points for PC reviews and criteria?
  • Should we instead focus on the ways in which S3 is worked on in distinct areas?
  • Want to look at S3 holistically at this juncture
  • Might be some utility in having the product council working with constituent groups to set broad usage goals for milestones: "Simple Course" was a useful target and way to frame discussions
  • Might come out of T&L group
  • 2 caveats: (a) these groups might need more specific action from us, to arrive at right level of specificity vs. abstraction; (b) we may need to encourage other functional stakeholder groups, eg. research
  • got the bootstrap problem again. communities not sure what it is they're supposed to fit into. K2 framework, K2 roadmap helping. getting closer to point where participation can be encouraged
  • struggling to process the volume of undigested things from T&L group
  • the K2 roadmap looks good as a way to throw resource at specific problems
  • there aren't barriers to participation; so many things are in JIRA or can be raised on list
  • the response "find something in JIRA" is a response for developers
  • we need to really get to the point of distilling requirements
  • one of the skillsets we're short of is business analysis; distillation process valuable; but again that's more of a resource issue than barriers to entry
  • It's easy to find what needs doing,; what's hard is doing it
  • not easy for someone like an instructional designers to participate
  • don't agree. Maybe we're in danger of misunderstanding what Sam's producing because they look polished, but most of what's being produced right now is really sketches. Anyone could be submitting sketches.
  • We can put energy into structuring for contributions, but why structure for contributions if you don't think they're going to come? Given our experience, it feels wiser to say that when we get contributions we'll deal with them.
  • Maybe we just say it that simply; don't need to ask permission to throw an idea out.
  • We might offer model behaviors to break through impasse of blank sheet of paper
  • NYU's vision: initially not sure how to interpret it. What is it about the NYU vision that makes it not a Sakai 3 vision?
  • First aim: trying to get commitment internally - use it to focus where to contribute

Next Steps

  • Clay will help Nate get SPC report fleshed out by Monday for others to comment
  • Didn't get through agenda, and some points still need to be discussed on-list