Summit Meeting Notes Feb. 23, 2007

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: Feb 23, 2007Version comment
4 min read

Mark Norton (note-taker)

Introductions
Oliver covered gradebook history
Olvier summarized work being done for 2.4
Lance summarized categories, weighting, new grade scales, etc.

Linda: we are interested in IMS interoperability.
Linda: is there a standard around grade types?

FinalGrades tool (IU tool) pulls data out of Gradebook and posts it to PeopleSoft.

Ray described the Grade Schema support to define grades.

Release scheduled for June 2, but put into Sakai 2.5.

Colin summarized Fluid.
Social aspects - building community support for design.
Technical - new UI development tools
Re-usable components - possibilty using RSF.

Michael summarized the TLS view. They are building a service around Thomson content. Sakai was selected a year ago as the basis of that.

Linda summarized Oracle view. Academic Enterprise Initiative (AEI). Linda isco-chair of IMS Enterprise WG. Sakai was picked to fill Learning Managment hole in Oracles product line. Oracle will add integration to and from student systems, using IMS standards.

Kirk summarized UC Davis. Gradebook and testing were big gaps for Davis.

Governance

There are resources that can be tapped if we can somehow coordinate them.
Linda: defined roles are important. Indiviiduals can then contribute into them.
Peter: Some other projects have worked: Resources and OSP.
Daphne: the Resoruces tool may not be the best example.
Lace: it as interesting to see OSP come tother. we are being guarded with our resources. to make sure they met our deliverables.
For Sakai to be successful, more groups will have to work as virtual teams.
Ray: OSP UI hasn't necessarily improved.
Lance: people in OSP came to the table and said the UI needs to be improved. They only folks that are making input into OSP are those with resources. These committees must be composed of those with resources to commit.
Peter: the needs of the community must be considered.
Mike: I want one gradebook, not two. But I have to have one that I can use by May 2.

We need a group where discussions can happen. Where plans can be explored, made, and coordinated.

Linda: we all have our timelines. We need to synch them.

What would we do: (Lance)

  • Each would declare resources.
  • We talke about priorities.
  • Then we determine what can get done by next date.
  • Draw line in the sand
  • Have weekly meetings with status reports.

Ray: re-prioritization can happen. Project mgmt is agile.

Peter: requirements should include use cases and reasons. Context.
kahli: What about where timelines don't synch up?
Linda: it's ok to be out of synch. It needs to be monitored. There is an agreement to merge and a date.

Work of the group:

  • Plan and manage work towards the next release
  • Plan and manage parallel work activities
  • Merge parallel development activities.
  • Coordinate with other such groups
  • Surface emerging issues and problems
  • Create roadmaps for the future

Polled representatives from the organizations present and all agreed to form this group.

Linda will layou t conttributions
Share IMS work.
Thru unicon, build an API that allows grades to be submitted to enterrise system.
Design by august, code by end of the year.

Commitment from Oracle

  • Share the work from IMS.
  • Sharing European use cases and terminology
  • Share work from AEI with Unicon for Interprise integration via IMS-ENT
  • Get validation on the submit grade process.
  • Will commit to participating in oversight group.

Commitment from Davis:

  • Half a programmer.
  • Kirk to facilitate group.

Commitment from Berkeley:

  • Sakai 2.4 code, bug fixes
  • Fluid work to be defined - design continuity
  • Part of a UI developer
  • Ray to consult to Indianna work on a task basis
  • Oliver to represent Berkeley on oversight group.

Commitment from Indiana:

  • Six developers full time starting next week.
  • Will see to implementation of categories, weights, etc.
  • Lance will represent Indiana to group.

Commitment from Thomson:

  • We will contribute code.
  • Will contribute designs, but that may be further out.
  • Will contribute service code.
  • Will contribute to bug fixing and maintenance
  • Mike will represent Thomson to this group.
  • Long term goal is to have one gradebook.

Things to do:

  • Work on priorities
  • Commit resources to priorities
  • How do we expand the knowledge of GB to bring in bug fixers?
  • How to we leverage other people?

Discussion on contributed patches, oversight of contributed patches, education of patchers, learning, etc.

Lance:
Some effort was made to capture requirements and priorities.
We need more information and use cases.
Oracle doesn't have much to contribute at this time, beyond the need for enterprise integration. They may have more later. Michael F. would know.
What are we trying to accomplish for 2.5? Lance - categories and weighting.
We need to understand what will be merged into the code for 2.5.

Mike: we have categories and weighting. We could contribute that code.
Dirk: we started with gradebook and worked out from there. Gradebook service has more methods.
Lance: this could be a solution for us.
Mike: I will get approval and package it up to give to Lance.
Dirk: Most of this is exposed through alternative UIs.
Kahli: this will take some developer effort and is not part of the current sprint. It is likely three weeks out.
Ray: I will have a look at the code as well.

Lance will look at the requirements and priorities.

Info to be in place on the 7th.
Next meeting: March 9th.
Indiana will setup a video/audio bridge.
Meet at 9am pacific time for two hours.

Meeting wrapped up around 3pm.