Sakai Board of Directors Conference Call
July 21, 2005
This document contains minutes from the conference call of the Sakai Board held on July 21, 2005. Corrections, suggestions should be sent to Joseph Hardin and Mary Miles.
Board members present: Brad Wheeler, Mike Elledge, Babi Mitra, Joseph Hardin, Jeff Merriman, Jutta Treviranus, Lois Brooks, Carl Jacobson, Ian Dolphin, Mara Hancock, Mary Miles (staff)
Discussion: Jutta reported that UToronto is preparing two website pages which will provide a very brief discussion of standards with which they currently comply, but they are also thinking about future goals for compliance. Jutta also noted that there is a style guide with some requirements built into it that was put together early with a mission statement for the Sakai applications. All of this can be found on confluence.
¿ Jutta was asked to send the standards list to the Architecture and Tools team leads (Rob & Chuck) and then post it for comments.
¿ Jutta will send the URL to Joseph for review. He will then circulate to the board and SEPP mailing list.
Topic: Project Report (Mike Elledge)
Discussion: Mike reported that there has been a great deal of work done trying to figure out how the new framework would work with the new sectioning tool. A meeting had been scheduled for July 22 between Lance, Chuck, Glenn, and rest of arch team to explore how to enable the current framework to incorporate sectioning without having to rewrite it. Mara indicated that the meeting had been cancelled. Mike will check on this.
Sectioning work has been going on at Berkeley. At the beginning of next week, there will be an opportunity to begin writing down the sub-tasks and targeting the estimated completion date. This would allow a detailed project plan and an indication of how people were doing on their goals.
Mike reported that Oliver was planning to talk to Mark about Course Management. Some work has been done on this but Mike was not aware of how far along they are. Mike will follow-up on this and report back to the board.
Joseph reported on load testing. The central services group tried to use Empirics and ran into difficulties. They don't have sufficient skills to work on that and have moved on to Mercury Load Runner. Our Med School currently has an expensive license for Load Runner and 2000 virtual users. They will be using that here to load our version of Sakai and C-Tools. Jon Anderson is leading the effort to get the Empirix system running.
¿ Mike will follow-up with Mark and Oliver on the status of Course Management work and report back to the board.
Topic: Conference Report
Discussion: Mary reported that a site visit would be made to Austin on August 1 & 2 in order to get a feel for the hotel and the rooms available. During that site visit, the group will also visit the UT-Austin Alumni Center, location of one of the receptions.
Mara has begun formulating the program committee. Anyone interested in participating or in suggesting members should contact Mara. Joseph suggested that Phil Long be added to the program committee. Joseph, reporting on the Organizational Committee, stated that a co-chair has not yet been identified.
¿ Mara to complete formulation of the program committee
¿ Joseph to identify co-chair for the overall conference Organizing Committee.
Topic: Articles of Incorporation
Discussion: Joseph reported that Jack Bernard is the legal counsel handling the legal side of the IP discussion. Anyone at schools holding materials that they have copyrighted at their schools under the ECL should talk to Jack. For the four schools, it would be nice if they could all take the same route for the transfer of IP.
Brad indicated that he has a two-page discussion document on the IT issue and Sakai futures.
¿ Joseph will send the board contact information for Jack Bernard.
¿ Brad will circulate the document on IT issues to the board.
Topic: Incorporation Issues
Discussion: Joseph feels that we need to go ahead in the next week with setting up the corporation. The full board is not required for this; it can be as many or as few as we want. A deadline of next Tuesday (July 26) was set for returning those to Mary.
¿ The board agreed Articles of incorporation will be signed by as many board members as possible and returned to Mary by July 26.
¿ Mary will send a copy of the Articles of Incorporation to all of the board members so that everyone is using the same document.
Topic: Other Updates
Discussion: Mara noted that Carol Dippel would like to provide the board with a more general update on QA and the process involved. Should she be invited to join the board conference call to provide this information?
¿ Carol will be asked to provide a written report rather than a verbal report. This can be circulated to the entire board and if there are questions, she can be invited to participate to address specific questions.
Discussion: Brad reported that IU had taken a strong look at the plan for the discussion tool and their inclusion of JForum as Foothill and IU are almost identical in functionality. Foothill plans to hook JForum to Sakai with common authentication, but the work plan does not allow for a graded discussion forum. What Foothill will use in the spring is not Sakai framework connected; they are using JForum and changing it internally while maintaining the features on top. IU has decided to take the API of the existing discussion tool, add a new interface, and add features. They believe they can get to a deployment in December and provide access to staff in January. Brad noted that they cannot hit the 2.1 release date, but will have something ready for use by December. IU's Center for Teaching and Learning has put together a SWAT team to develop a complete set of design documents by August 12. This team will compile the wish list from IU, and the wish lift for Foothill, add some new things and add a different interface that is much more responsive to teaching and learning. Rob and Chuck believe that with two developers they can hit the target date.
Based on this information, IU is asking that 2 development resources be pulled back and put on this project. Joseph responded that he had discussed this issue with both Brad and Chuck and agrees that it is a good direction for IU to proceed and probably a good way to get the discussion tool we need for the future. His only concern was that going through a process this quickly may miss a lot of functionality requests from systems that have already been experimented with by others.
¿ Ask Chuck whether this can be incorporated into the design and not just be another stop-gap measure.
¿ IU will move forward with this.
¿ Vivie will also continue with the Foothill discussion tool from the outside to see what walls we run up against as we move it into Sakai.
The call ended at 2:10 p.m.