Child pages
  • 3-11-2009 Conference Call
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Participants: Christian (Rutgers), Brian (Marist), Mathieu (Delaware), Josh (Marist), Robin (Wyoming), Emily (JHU), John Hayes (Berkeley), Kate (Indiana), Janet (Delaware)

0. Welcome to new members!

  • Christian (Rutgers)
  • Brian (Marist)

1. TWSIA Judging

  • There was an orientation session for the committee last week, only 4 of 11 participated.
  • Used Elluminate, worked OK, but not the best for conversation.
  • Need to confirm time; will use Doodle to fine a good time for the majority of people.
  • Have a conference call available as a backup.
  • Skype conference calls seems to work fine with Connect; Skype recorder available.
  • Will use Elluminate; this is the system that will be used for final judging.
  • Josh needs frequent reminders.

2. Sakai Boston Conference

  • Need to make a realistic budget as the conference gets closer, and we know where the winers will be traveling from

2.1 Pre-Conference Workshop

  • OSP will run a full day workshop.
    • A.M.: Intro.
    • P.M.: Technical stuff. Will let attendees come to our presentation.
  • Send announcements again to get more people involved.
  • Have people post outline and contact information online before the conference; update after the conference to reflect actual event.

2.2 Sessions

  • Discussion of T&L conference proposal ideas and recruiting of faculty/students to present.

2.3 Feature Presentation of the Winners

  • Paris: Had a 75, 90 minute slot. Worked fine.
  • Ask speakers to limit their presentation to 30 minutes, leave time for Q&A.
  • Need to be recorded.
  • Ask our sponsors to help us with this. Has value for them.
  • Keynote and featured speakers should also be recorded.

3. New Requirements Process

  • Michael will release a concept document in the next weeks.
  • We need a new process to share our requirements with developers.
  • Kate: IU has a process. Here is a link to somewhat outdated information:\!gateway/page/895a1a30-ac76-483c-8040-9ff3946d1c6c
    • Attachment to this page of rough notes
    • Two committees that guide development
      • FRC: Staff from teaching centers, IT, prioritize suggestions for enhancements and makes recommendations to the OPC
      • OPC: Mostly faculty--decides what development work will go forward
    • Getting the new LMS at par with the old one was the first big task.
    • "Suggestions" / requests come from many places:
      • Summary by suggestions analysis team from input from web-based form
      • FRC members through their work with faculty and staff
      • Requests from departments & schools for substantial enhancements and new functionality
      • List of known issues, not bugs but "unexpected behaviors".
      • Survey to users which generated list of top ten requests
      • analysis of previous suggestions
    • FRC does more work than prioritize and make recommendations.
    • Evaluates new tools, such as Mneme, Samigo, BlogWow
    • Interaction with FRC and developer team lead, functional analyst, and designer.
    • OPC reviews recommendations
    • Decide which tools need more design work.
    • Dev team makes time estimate for enhancement, sends it to OPC.
    • Strong leadership and committed resources are the is keys to success, IMHO. Also--flexible evolving process
    • User-driven, not dev-driven.
  • Josh: How should we address long-term, strategic vs. short-term fixes?
  • Kate: This is much more the focus of UITS leadership. OPC is kept informed of stratigeic goals. David Goodrum could join us to discuss this.
  • Josh: Problem with smaller institutions pushing their requirements to institutions with developers (IU, Michigan, Cambridge, etc.).
  • Kate: Need to make tool development a multi-institutional endeavor
  • Robin: How would this new process fit with what's happening right now (Jira)?
  • Josh: Last effort has had limited results.
  • We have to start from what has been done last time. Refresh the list.
  • Robin: Top 5 list process has been done already too.