2010-06-02 Product Council Meeting
- Former user (Deleted)
8 pm GMT+2 / 7pm BST / 2pm EDT
Phone number: 1 (812)856-7060
Room code: 22350#
Password: 72524#
Agenda
- Review/discuss Product Council activities around 2.8/3.0 releases & the 2010 Conference
- Review/discuss syntheses of Product Council Review
Useful Links
Notes
Attendees
- Michael
- Max
- Eli
- Noah
- David
- Nate
- John Lewis
- John Norman
Review/discuss Product Council activities around 2.8/3.0 releases & the 2010 Conference
2.8 Possible Scenarios http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/MGT/2.8+Possible+Scenarios
from Clay's email:
<clay>
On this page 1 I've put various change scenarios into three
groupings: probable. plausible, and long shot (I talked myself out of
a happy 3 with 'preposterous'). 'Probable' simply indicates that there
seems to be enough momentum and committed resource to make these
things happen in a reasonable timeframe, provided we get serious about
the planning and execution. 'Plausible' means that there are known
efforts to advance these agendas, and they may come through, but it
would take a surge in energy and leadership to bring them about in a
reasonable timeframe. The 'Long Shot' category includes those for
which there is either a high degree of uncertainty or difficulty (in
my own mind, which might very easily be corrected) or no committed
resource at all.
As things stand, it looks to me like the community is poised to make a
set of cross-cutting quality improvements a central theme of 2.8 (as
opposed to, say, feature additions).
</clay>
PC Notes:
Discussing role PC may take in the ongoing future of the 2.x product line. It is not the PC's decision to decide the 2.x EoL. The PC will assume 2.x persistence, questioning/identifying gaps, maintenance resources, etc as usual with any project. How long does it make sense for the community/SF to make new 2.x releases? Other possible futures: Sakai 3 fails to gain widespread adoption, or Sakai 2/Sakai 3 both continue on as vibrant products.
There is no reason for the PC to speculate on whether there will or will not be a final 2.x release until we start to see red flags in terms of a lack of resources for 2.n.. The Product Council will stop using language which implies the killing of 2.n. (Note: I'm not sure the PC has used such language much or often or officially.)
Specifics on the 2.8 page:
"CKEditor upgrade " CKEditor is the name for the next generation of FCKEditor.
The FCKEditor is not well accessible. Advocating for community resources for the updating of FCKEditor to put the Sakai community's money where its mouth is on accessibility.
"Security" Similar to accessibility with regard to the importance of putting our money where our mouth is.
Our list should not be seen as exhaustive.
Our list should take deprecations into account from the beginning.
There is some concern expressed about the categorization of 2.8 material into "Probable", "Plausible" and "Long Shot". It is noted that this categories are still fluid, and "Long Shot" might be appropriately read to mean "Needs more attention."
Summarizing an 'impressions paper' at this location: http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/MGT/2.8+Exercise.
Max, Noah, Michael F, and Nate have agreed to work on the PC "white paper" on the 2.8 release (linked above).
Denver 2010 Project Coordination Meetings http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/MGT/Denver+2010+Project+Coordination
Sakai 3 Conference Meetings
from Clay's email:
<clay>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Clay Fenlason <clay.fenlason@et.gatech.edu>
Date: Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:45 AM
Subject: sakai-kernel S3 project coordination gathering
To: Sakai UI Development <sakai-ui-dev@collab.sakaiproject.org>, sakai-kernel@googlegroups.com
I put out some feelers last week about what the right sort of S3
development gatherings in Denver would be. What came back from this
were the following points:
- Friday looks to be the best time, and a focused half-day seems an
appropriate span of time. So, Friday morning (the 18th) - The UI development team and the Nakamura team should be together for
at least a portion of this. - We should start developing an agenda and set of goals on-list (and
I'll work to capture it in Confluence)
So let's start there. I think one clear agenda item will be a
discussion around the project planning which has been underway for the
last few weeks, in cooperation with representatives from contributing
institutions. The current expectation is that we'll have a roadmap and
resource plan in hand, however preliminary. Whatever we have at that
point should certainly be reviewed and discussed.
What do you think needs to be covered, or how could the time be best spent?
~Clay
</clay>
Review/discuss syntheses of Product Council Review
Product Council Review - Community Responses http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/MGT/Product+Council+Review+-+Community+Responses
Product Council Review - PC Members' Responses http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/MGT/Product+Council+Review+-+PC+Members'+Responses
The discussion of the Product Council Review comes at the end of the hour. John Norman proposes a succinct summary: Let us and the community choose a single deliverable, and judge ourselves against whether or not we deliver it. The proposed deliverable is the Road Map. If we cannot shepherd a Road Map into being, then we should consider disbanding.
Possibly Eli (possibly someone else) noted that in developing a Road Map only some of it could be done by the Product Council, and drawing a clean line around what the PC can write and what it ask other groups to write.
John Lewis strongly disagrees with the role of the Product Council making these decisions unilaterally.
John Norman restates the deliverable as 'cause a roadmap to be produced that the community finds useful' not the writing of it unilaterally.
The basis for judging the deliverable will both be whether we can get to a road map, and then also, whether the community finds that road map useful.