2009 02 26 Upv V02

OVERVIEW & UPDATE

February 2009, Valencia, Spain

Agenda

Sakai in 2008 Focus on Quality Challenges

Sakai 3.0 Approach Demo Getting involved

Community Survey & Board Retreat Survey Results New Development Structure?

Focus on Quality

August 2007: My first month at Sakai Sakai release 2.4 going in production Large institutions spending too much time on

troubleshooting & maintenance Fewer resources for new feature development

Immediate Foundation Goal Quality, Quality, Quality

Other Issues Dissatisfaction with Sakai UX Upcoming Newport Beach Conference No location selected for Summer 2008 conference Too much time/money spent on organizing

conferences

Changes & Results

Increased Foundation staff focused on QA Extended QA Cycle for 2.5

Formal Beta and Release Candidates University of Cape Town running Beta in

production Final 2.5.0 release in March instead of November

Introduction of Maintenance Releases Currently on Sakai 2.5.4, the most reliable

version of Sakai to date Challenge: Managing 2.5 and 2.6 releases

simultaneously

UX Improvement

Did not make 2.6 release Not enough work completed in time for code

freeze Many felt design needed happen on tools before

they would deploy on campus 2.7 or 3.0?

Currently the Foundation is working towards 3.0 Design work can be implemented for 2.7, but we

need resources willing to do this Overall Result

Positive change in direction Won’t be satisfied until changes reach release

Foundation Spending

January - September

Slowly Moving in Right Direction

Current Challenges

Predictable Roadmap Good things are happening When will they emerge into the release?

Creating large changes User Interface Improvement Major Tool Rewrites A Completely New Version?

Why and What and When

Sakai 3

Sakai 3 Needs

Changes in user expectations Web 2.0 Beyond course support

New technology More standards open source projects to

leverage JCR (Jackrabbit) Open Social (Shindig)

Client-side programming JavaScript/AJAX

Sakai 3 for Users

Academic Networking Connections are important Not friends, per se, but connections Includes research and people

Content authoring and organization Flexible page creation Template-based authoring Everything is content

Searchable, linkable, portable

Sakai 3 for Users cont.

Groups & Sites (call them spaces?) Join a group

A collection of people with something in common Have access to a site/space

A collection of content and functionality Multiple groups can have access to the same

space Treatment of content

Stored in a general repository Available in a variety of sites/spaces “Everything” is content

Content in Sakai 3

Sakai 3 for Users (cont.)

Beyond Tool Silos Academic work flows often cross tool

boundaries Anything can be graded! Anything can be discussed!

This is beginning to appear in Sakai 2 But more needs to be done

Example: Assignments Tool Yes, students need a list of all assignments But should they need to go to the

assignments tool in each class to find them?

http://3akai.sakaifoundation.org

Sakai 3 Demo

Sakai 3 Technology

Scalability Remove bottlenecks from Sakai 2. Initial tests show large improvements; need

more proof. Developer Productivity

Faster builds UX & back-end development separated

Code Quality & Maintenance Reliance on other open source efforts Increase unit testing

Easier to install/build To improve initial experience for new developers

JCR as Content Store

Standards-based JSR 170 Ships with Apache Jackrabbit, but can be

changed Everything as content

Discussion post, User profile information, etc. Components put Content into JCR Content store Sakai Kernel creates relational indices in DB

Component doesn’t need to do anything Automatic tracking of most events by kernel

JSON

Sakai Kernel provides JSON microformat Components use REST calls to interact with

Kernel Again, standards based

JAX-RS currently in Kernel (JSR 311) Benefits

Back-end services stay Java-based UX programmers more often skilled in JavaScript

Easier UX developers can work on Sakai Tools like GWT can be used for Java-based UI Components can be written using other languages

Sakai 3 Participation

K2 Working Group http://groups.google.com/group/sakai-kernel

UX Design Work UX list http://groups.google.com/group/3akai

How would you like to be involved? Development

Java & JavaScript Design

Conceptual, interaction and visual

When

Q1 2009: Sakai 2.6 Q3 2009: Sakai 2.6.#

A maintenance release for fall production 2010

Q1: Sakai 2.7 (New assignments tool and gradebook?) Later: First versions of Sakai 3

Not functionally equivalent to 2.7 Suitable for new adoptions “Hybrid” version for existing Sakai schools

2011 Sakai 3 as full replacement Maintenance releases for Sakai 2.7 through 2013 No version 2.8

Community Survey & Board Retreat

Changing Practices?

Survey

50+ Organizational Responses 150+ Individual Responses Overall

Sense of overall stability Trust in Sakai board Want to spend more time on community

Sakai Believe that Sakai will be the best platform

Community Wants

Clear product vision & direction More communication from Foundation Roadmap that allows campus advocates to

effectively communicate with stakeholders Project structure that attracts sufficient

resources and uses them effectively More input from functional experts &

designers Allow diverse types participation

Large and small, Formal and informal, Institutional and individual

Ways of Getting Work Done

Organic – Contributors participate in the community based on personal/local interests and priorities. It is the responsibility of the individual to communicate and request broader contribution.

Coordinated – Community structures actively seek to identify and align common contributions. Unmet needs are identified to leaders to encourage investment.

Managed – Resources are committed to achieve a defined set of deliverables. Central authority determines priorities.

Pro

duct Life

Cycle

Majo

r Pro

duct

Changes

• Generate new ideas• Try new technologies

• Prove desirability• Create dev team/plan• Reduce dev risks

• Finish building• Test• Document

Community

Product Council

Product Council

Product Council

Changes

What’s the same? Open development process Low barrier to entry for R&D projects Independent projects possible/encouraged Small feature development remains the same Structural Similarities, possible misperception

R&D ≠ Contrib, Incubation ≠ Provisional, Project ≠ Core

What is different? Adherence to criteria from Incubation to Project Managed process for development team(s) Product Council to enforce criteria for making

release The notion of a maintenance group

Remaining Questions

Will the community accept the model? Foundation recommends, but community

decides Who is the Product Council?

A small group led by Sakai Foundation? A larger panel of community representatives?

A Maintenance Team? A group of developers (part time), directed by

the Foundation to fix bugs Incentive for products to be in official release

And meet standards for inclusion