Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:25:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1236905977.7269.1711671928382@ip-10-10-7-29.ec2.internal> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_7268_1904223767.1711671928381" ------=_Part_7268_1904223767.1711671928381 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
Conference Call Info: Video Bridge 22102
Who |
With |
Attended |
---|---|---|
Benn Oshrin |
Internet2 / Various |
|
Eric Westfall |
Indiana U / Kuali |
|
Jeremy Rosenberg |
SFU |
|
Jimmy Vuccolo |
PSU |
|
Renee Shuey |
PSU |
|
RL "Bob" Morgan |
U. Washington / Internet2 |
|
Steven Carmody |
Brown |
|
Matt Sargent |
Kuali |
matt - aaron has decide to step down from the meetings from here on out<= /p>
bob - internet 2 meeting next week
bob - are there materials available to show what Kuali Rice components a= re available to show what Kuali might do, how we got the project started wi= th investors etc.
eric - yes, the most important piece is the Kuali Rice project charter, = that lays out the vision objectives, investment model. i'll send that out t= o the group
bob - on the I2 side, things were not nearly as formal as that, more int= ernal discussions
bob - a week from now, the overall effort, we need to report back to the= community of where we are at. how much of our material do we want to make = public? Kind of looks chaotic, but nothing is too secret.
eric - i don't think we have anything sensitive out there. do we need to= do any clean-up to hide things?
matt - i can take a stab at organizing and cleaning up our space.
benn - what's the message that we're trying to show? here's our stuff, c= omment? here's our strategy?
bob - need some verbiage on where we are, we have 3 potential code bases= , how do we approach accessing those=E2=80=A6these are the difficult decisi= ons. not sure how to build from that to a plan.
steve - that's starting to cross the line into implementation, is that p= art of our charge or is that something that the eventual investors decide?<= /p>
bob - figuring out what is available and such could be what our work is = and presenting that to the investors. kicking the can down the road. if i w= ere a CIO i'd like something a bit firmer than that though.
eric - i wonder if how we approach this is dependent on what the strateg= y group is proposing, their model. i think it's mostly complete, should we = approach our suggestion from that angle
bob - a work package is defined and some parties come together to invest= and work on this with one as the care taker and away we go. the job of thi= s team would be to say your job is to produce a registry and it should look= like this.
eric - so is there anyone that is ready to take this care taker role on.= sure kuali is talking about doing this, but needs to be sorted out more be= fore that decision can be committed to. what's the I2 or Jasig talk on this= ?
bob - yes, I2 is quite interested in talking about investing, but what t= hat means isn't exactly clear. we have an existing model for getting time f= rom developers and architects, we'd continue w/that. how many and for how l= ong is the obvious question we need to answer. i don't think I2 would insis= t on being the care taker for the Registry piece, maybe provisioning. the a= dministration effort is a question we need to answer. the upcoming I2 meeti= ng is a good opportunity to talk to the execs on where we want to go with t= his. the elevator speech as to how we can make that happen.
eric - Jasig might be interested in this as well since they have a Regis= try component already?
benn - they will probably continue to operate as they always have. ultim= ately the work comes from member organizations, they don't really fund deve= loper time.
bob - the question would more be to OpenRegistry and their organizations= as to whether they would be interested in this activity that would fulfill= the needs they have been trying to meet.
jeremy - we were active in Open Registry, that project didn't come toget= her the way we'd hoped, but our need still exists. I think there is still g= ood stuff in the OpenRegistry code base. But we are mostly interested in pa= rticipating in a healthy project to meet these needs. We certainly don't wa= nt to go it alone and I still don't see any commercial solutions that even = understand the problem space of a higher ed identity registry.
eric - the challenge for me is that the decisions like this are not made= by the tech folks (me), it'd be more for Bill Yock or those at the board l= evel. the feeling i'm getting is that this is of real interest and we have = issues we already need to solve related to this (with our student and hr sy= stems) so we have to do something about that. i can take an action item to = discuss this with the leadership based on what we have done so far.
bob - the question then is what technical materials need to be at hand t= o help with those decisison.
eric - so are we looking at some work for this group.
bob - it seems we are all turning to our own respective communities and = seeing what they think.
eric - we can talk about what it would take to make a funded project lik= e this to happen. Need a value prop, visions, objectives. From this side we= 've talked about on the tech side, ref architectures, but that is sort of f= unctional too. Those requirements we've been gathering. Those seem to be th= e things that need to exist to me.
bob - yes, there are a range of requirements, some core, some less neces= sary, some not clear as being a registry piece. Need to lay out priorities = in development, things to be worked out in terms of scope.
eric - yeah, for a big project, we need to do that. get that list of req= s, scope, prioritize, and the release schedule. so for this group our next = steps are=E2=80=A6? we've done the requirements, we have a strategy of how = the overall project goes. There are going to be I2 discussions, so we need = to offer more than what we have already.
bob - there is the summary we presented last week, it could be spun into= a more forward looking fashion based on what we talked about today. there = is functionality that could be chunked and scoped.
eric - so we're looking at taking what work this group has done and turn= ing that into a project proposal. this is what building an open source regi= stry would look like.
bob - yes, team member skills. the I2 conference is Oct. 3, week after n= ext.
eric - so who in the group would be interested in helping put that toget= her? Eric would be interested (w/Matt in tow). i'd probably want to get bil= l or hampton involved as well if they could as long as there's no objection= . (none from the group)
renee - i'll help where needed.
bob - yeah, it'd be useful to have you since you've done this as part of= the project you have. list of skills, time, etc.
steve - i can help some too.
eric - we should raise this wit the strategy group.
bob - i'll do that
bob - matt will work on cleaning up the wiki. i'd like to get a message = out to Educause, I2, etc. to point them to public materials by a week from = today. finalized by next weeks meeting. eric, please send that kuali materi= al too. (done)