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

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 28 Current »

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 Here is a link to somewhat outdated information: https://oncourse.iu.edu/portal/site/!gateway/page/895a1a30-ac76-483c-8040-9ff3946d1c6c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.
  • No labels