Bedework Steering Committee

piegazeInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

7 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

61 εμφανίσεις

1


Bed
ework Steering Committee

January 27, 2011


Participants:

Eric Wittman, Mimi Mugler, Deb Johnson,
Arlen Johnson, Gary
Schwartz, Jonathan
Markow
,
Barry Leibson

Notes
:

Gary explained that Mike had surgery the day before and will be out for a few weeks and

that Steve
Carmody had an unexpected item that he needed to take care of, so neither of them will be on today’s
call.

I.

Jasig 2011 Conference in Denver

(May
23
-
25
)

A.

Barry is the Bedework representative on the conference committee. Barry said that
they have
planned a schedule of seminars for Sunday through Wednesday and have received
30
-
35 proposals for regular sessions.

He said that Arlen and he will be doing a seminar about
calendaring. Gary said he submitted two proposals for Jasig sessions: (1) a sessio
n about
Bedework and calendaring standards and (2) a session about RPI’s deployment of help desk
software that is scheduled to go live within the next few weeks.

B.

Jonathan said that the proposals were more well
-
rounded in terms of representation
from produc
ts, but he was disappointed that no proposals had been received from institutions
using Bedework. He said it continues to puzzle him as to why institutions using BW do not do
more in terms of getting the word out about their implementation. Gary responde
d by saying
that BW seems to be more one
-
dimensional than it really is; it’s not just RPI.

Mimi said they had
planned to do something, but they are now on hold with their plans to hire a calendar
developer. They identified a candidate, but are not able t
o extend a job offer. She said that
CalConnect will be holding its meeting the first week in February on their campus and she hopes
to connect with BW folks at that time.

II.

Capturing requirements for Bedework

A.


Deb said that she, Eric and Barry had
developed

some preliminary plans
for

capturing
the requirements. They will each add requirements they know of to the Jasig Jira under the
Bedework 4.0 issue. Jira will enable them to prioritize, comment on and track the requirements.
Once they have added their r
equirements, they will “distribute” the list via the BW distribution
list and ask the BW community to rank their top 3
-
5 requirements, add any that are not on the
list and comment as desired.

The group agreed that this process sounded viable.

B.

Gary said th
at he had proposed a “State of the Project” report for each Jasig product
that would provide information about where each project is, its progress and a “health check” of
the project. He offered to provide a skeleton of a State of the Project report about

BW for the
SC members to provide some input.

III.

White paper on Bedework futures

A.

Gary suggested that the State of the Project report for the Jasig Board could provide the
jump start for a white paper on BW futures.

B.

As for adoptions, Gary noted that Barry and Jonathan seem to be the most active when
it comes to identifying adoptions of BW. Barry said that some of the inquiries he received about
BW are “half
-
baked,” but some seem to be promising. The most promising a
re commercial
2


applications of BW. He did mention that the University of Manitoba is considering BW along
with two other competitors. He also mentioned that he is doing training for OMNIUpdate and
may end up being a back
-
up to them. Jonathan stated that

it may be better to have a larger,
commercial enterprise using the BW product. Barry said that OMNI installs BW for their CMS
customers when asked for a calendar.

C.

Gary said that these deployment possibilities are opportunities to bring back
development

suggestions. He said he planned to raise awareness about BW via CalConnect
blogs and asked whether Jasig had a blogging mechanism.

Jonathan said that there is a listing of
blogs on the Jasig site that comes from an aggregation of comments using tags tha
t are posted
in other wikis. The Confluence wiki has a blogging facility, but no one has used it. He suggested
that people could possibly contribute via the Confluence blog. Gary said that RPI could set
something up if the Jasig wiki/blog isn’t useable
because a blog is better than a monthly
newsletter or email message. Jonathan suggested using the Confluence blog and see if they can
be pulled onto the Jasig.org site from that location.

It was noted that a blog composed of
narrative is “smoother” than
one with technical jargon. Eric said that the Jasig Drupal Context
may be more effective, but most important is how it’s managed and aggregated. Regardless of
the mechanism used for the blog, Gary said that blogging about BW is a shared task and that
p
eople should be encouraged to share their calendar story. The goal is to obtain wide
participation
, but he realizes that people often have to get past writer’s block to post to a blog
.

Jonathan underscored these comments and said that, while it’s great f
or Gary to set this up and
do this, it will be even better for others to contribute their stories.

D.

Mimi asked if we could go back to the agenda item about “threats and opportunities,”
She explained that the developer of the Cyrus email system

at Carnegie
Mellon University, Ken
Murchison
,
has been charged with developing a calendar, more open
-
source. Ken will be at the
CalConnect Round Table on their campus the first week in February. She said that this could be
either a threat or an opportunity. Jonatha
n said that Jasig had been talking to CMU about BW
for more than a year. If they’re not pursuing BW, but considering building their own calendar,
he’s not sure what the issues are.

Gary stated it was worth reaching out to Ken with
collaboration as a goal
. It was agreed that Jonathan and/or Gary would reach out to Ken via the
CalConnect Board. The question was asked how we can collaborate to leverage our work?

IV.

Bedework status update

A.

Gary reported that 3.7 is

close to being ready for deployment and that RPI is considering
installing 3.7 as their production system. He said the things missing from it are things they (RPI)
can do without. Arlen clarified that they aren’t adding features, but are “polishing off
the
edges.” They tried to incorporate more internationalization into 3.7. The timepicker app is in
3.7. In addition, they have different services that have been inbound in the admin that are
becoming outbound. One new feature in 3.7 is an address book
client that points to any Card
DAV server. Arlen said he is looking forward to hearing more about desired directions for 4.0.

B.

Eric asked whether 3.7 is targeted to UC
-
Berkeley. Gary responded saying, while the
features in 3.7 are very useful to UCB,

there is nothing about those features that is specific to
UCB. Eric then asked whether UCB’s being in a holding pattern to hire their calendar developer
meant that there was no defined or required date for the release of 3.7. Gary said that there’s
actu
ally a lot in this release for everyone including the internationalization.

C.

Eric indicated that the SC has not discussed a release schedule for BW. It was stated
that with release 3.7 and the requirements to be collected by the SC, we can develop a more
d
efined trajectory and timeline for releases. These conversations should take place after 3.7 has
been released. Gary said these were all good points and that capturing the requirements will
3


inform the discussion about future releases and timeframes. Deb

asked how the other Jasig
products handle the development and scheduling of releases. Jonathan said that there is a
release manager for each of the other projects who makes those decisions. The requirements
are monitored in Jira. He did say that there
is some “opportunistic” scheduling of releases that
is done.

D.

Gary explained that BW has been RPI
-
centric, but with some help from Barry, they’ve
tried to take a more global perspective with their development.

E.

It was agreed that two items at the top of our
next agenda are (1) release timing and (2)
capturing requirements.
Jonathan said we
need to

develop
and provide a road map of current
releases and then, less specifically, an idea about what’s coming. People can then track the
status and may become more
involved. Arlen said we need a broad vision of where BW product
is headed and we need to have this discussion. It will also help us know if we need more
development or more marketing of BW.

F.

Gary said that has been recent interest/discussion about authent
ication and directories.
He announced that RPI is joining InCommon meaning BW will become more Shibboleth
-
centric.
He said he would love to see wider interaction among users/developers to messages posted on
the BW mailing list rather than relying on RP
I folks to respond. One suggestion was for someone
to send a “chatty” email to the list about the desire to have the ability to search/filter by
location in an attempt to get the list messages to be more functional than technical. Gary said
that having a

blog was another way to unblock and encourage the functional discussion.

V.

Next call


Thursday, February 24
th

at 11:30 EDT




Respectfully submitted,


Deb Johnson, PhD

Assistant Vice Provost

Director, Administrative & Community Support Services

Duke
University