Marist reports that in the course of testing OSP they have found issues in Resources and WebDav, but no OSP bugs lately
In Indianapolis we created a functional team with stronger leadership. Leadership would rotate every month, or possibly 2. Jan is taking the first rotation.
Statements our our mission and goals included:
A portion of the Monday meeting will be devoted to functional issues, led by the chair of the Fun Team.
Plan for today is to touch on issues here, then have an email discussion. A revised version of Ros' notes will be circulated.
Jan will run for Nov. except 1 week.
A page will be created to hold both finished and work in progress info
Problem in past - no way to transfer agreement from functional team to development
John Ellis - problem was really scope - too much to do
Blue Sky - where do we want to be in 2 years. How do we translate vision into requirements?
This is like IU's process, and John Gosney put up documents reflecting that.
Imperative to give developers as much contact with functional people as possible to avoid feature creep.
A lot of work done for 2.0 with user scenarios, we can extrapolate a user scenario template from it.
Are there functional lists (this was done, this wasn't) that should be looked at? Could be useful to do assessment.
Jay Fern's functional document could be checked over. Is there anything we could still use?
Put it up on confluence. Much of document depended on complete revamp of Resources tool, which is not going to happen in the next year.
Gonzalo's dashboard mockup is relevant.
Erica will continue with template for user scenario. Post and report back.
Hannah will put up a page with older planning docs under the Functional Team confluence page. Anyone who has such docs should post them there.
Many things in 2.5 that got postponed would require more resources or getting Sakai to do stuff.
Lynn: 2 types of 2.6 work: Bugs (people are using tools that are not functioning well for their intended purpose) v. new features
We should be able to go to our institutions and tell them what the tool will be able to do in 2 years.
We need better communication with Sakai. We need ubiquitous services so you can engage in activities across tools.
Blue Sky = realistic 2-year road map, but we shouldn't limit ourselves to current resources. We could get money, etc.
Michigan may have more than one person. Beth will be at the meeting. We haven't decided who else will be in the room.
Maybe Melissa, maybe Noah. In the past, it has been developer-centric, with too many people and not always well moderated.
There will be a Community meeting at Newport. Follow-up to IUPUI Thursday or Friday.
**When does something move from Functional page to Jira
**What about institutional priorities
**What about issues outside the three small group
IN has posted their internal requirements, people should look over them and we'll discuss them at the next phone meeting.
We'll also go over Reports, which has a list of things to do.