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
- 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.
- 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 Here is a link to somewhat outdated information: https://oncourse.iu.edu/portal/site/\!gateway/page/895a1a30-ac76-483c-8040-9ff3946d1c6c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.