=== bazhang_ is now known as bazhang === lukjad007 is now known as ShadowChild === \sh_ is now known as \sh === Claudinux_One is now known as Claudinux === mvo__ is now known as mvo === lex79 is now known as lex === lex is now known as lex79 === WelshDragon is now known as YDdraigGoch === ogra__ is now known as ogra_ === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach === asac__ is now known as asac === yofel_ is now known as yofel === WelshDragon is now known as YDraigGoch === YDraigGoch is now known as YDdraigGoch === hsitter is now known as apachelogger === fader is now known as fader|lunch === fader|lunch is now known as fader === jono_ is now known as jono === JayFo is now known as JFo [23:01] * doctormo waves [23:01] #startmeeting [23:01] Meeting started at 17:01. The chair is cprofitt. [23:01] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [23:01] thanks cprofitt [23:01] Welcome to the Ubuntu Learning Project Meeting [23:02] roll call please -- just say here [23:02] here [23:03] here [23:03] here [23:03] thank you... [23:03] [TOPIC]Licensing [23:03] New Topic: Licensing [23:04] Still waiting on SFLC, they have been contacted right? [23:04] still paused, I spoke with dinda a couple days ago and gave her the email addys of all of the board members [23:04] has there been any progress on this? Has anyone contacted the SFLC? [23:04] doctormo: not contacted, we're waiting for the intro from Canonical [23:04] Is it worth going to them directly? [23:04] thanks pleia2 [23:05] I really have to reiterate that before we can move forward we have to have this part nailed down [23:05] it impacts learners, instructors and other potential users of the courseware [23:06] * pleia2 nods [23:06] cprofitt: AFAIC it's pretty much was nailed by the position of canonical resourcing and their no NC previso. [23:06] [TOPIC] Approval Process for Courses [23:06] New Topic: Approval Process for Courses [23:06] This is a hold over topic from three weeks ago... [23:06] here [23:06] and it really depends on what our structure ends up being [23:06] last week we said it was paused until we get governance sorted [23:07] but I think we need to work on an approval process for courses... [23:07] review the content... quality, accuracy, etc. [23:07] It's shouldn't be too hard, we'd need agreement from Vantrax and bodi on these issue though [23:08] doctormo, on the NC part? [23:08] OK do we have a staging site, or a source repository where this stuff is then compiled into moodle courses? [23:08] :) [23:08] I believe bodhi_zazen has a staging site [23:08] No on the governance [23:08] bodhi_zazen, is that accuracy? [23:08] doctormo, we are not on the governance discussion yet [23:08] still on approval [23:09] it was more of a 'Hey, lets think about this' [23:09] than an action style item [23:09] [TOPIC] Structure [23:09] New Topic: Structure [23:09] Last meeting a draft page - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Learning/Structure - was put up [23:09] and people were asked to contribute their thoughts to what they wanted the structure to be... [23:09] there have been no modifications to this page [23:10] so I will ask again the people contribute their thoughts to this page [23:10] currently we have a board, but nothing else beyond that for strucutre [23:10] the page isnt exactly very explanitory [23:10] we need to have a method / process for approval of new members [23:10] we are willing to entertain alternate leadership structures [23:10] cprofitt: maybe you can send an email to the list with that link and more details asking for contributions? [23:11] pleia2: +1 [23:11] popey, yes... I made it very open on that account [23:11] I did not want to 'limit' [23:11] is the mailing list functional now? [23:11] yes [23:11] you dont have to limit, just set expectations [23:11] that's what I send the meeting reminder out on :) [23:11] s/send/sent [23:11] popey, I do not even have expectations for this.. to be honest [23:11] cprofitt: I have a "test" moodle server [23:11] at learn.bodhizazen.net [23:11] bodhi_zazen, I thought so... [23:12] thanks for hosting that bodhi_zazen [23:12] cprofitt: I think he means expecations as far as "why do we need structure, what are our duties that require all this, etc" [23:12] cprofitt: What kind of approval, course approval should work same as code approval, a group of commiters and anyone else can make modifications and doesn't need any say so [23:12] y [23:12] YES [23:12] I will try to take a look at how others teams are structured and point people to those examples... and give people some areas we need to build strucutre [23:12] -caps [23:12] doctormo, well with courses there will be two parts... [23:12] the technical accuracy [23:13] and the educational quality [23:13] team structure and governance will be more then approving courses and content [23:13] a course could be technically correct, but terrible at conveying the information to a new user [23:13] we need both [23:13] bodhi_zazen, I agree [23:13] cprofitt: isnt that self-correcting? [23:13] do the doc team do that? (I dont think so) [23:13] they were commenting on a different topic [23:13] the issues come up when either there is a disagreement between members or a disruptive member [23:13] LOL [23:13] But we do need to consider progressibe patching and updating of all course material [23:13] popey, the doc team documents... [23:14] writing a pedagogic document people are meant to learn from goes beyond that [23:14] yes, they create content in the same way you are going to do - or at least very similar? [23:14] you have to give people exercises and connect bits of technical knowledge to application [23:14] sure [23:14] cprofitt: I know we want quality matieral, but I'm certainly of the camp of as much freedom and as few "hoops to jump through" to contribute as possible [23:15] I am not an educator, but work with them... and there is an art that elevates content to being of high value in the learning process [23:15] proper grammar would be neat [23:15] but i dont see that there needs to be someone to sign it off any more than there is for an application which technically correctly implements a protcol, or uses a service [23:15] they use what they call rubrics [23:15] pleia2: contributing shouldn't have any hoops, it's publishing that needs a couple of checks [23:15] I am still working on getting a curriculum writer to come on board with us [23:15] popey, there is a need for us to approve the course [23:15] doctormo: "a couple of checks" is fine but I fear too much structure will turn into an insane approval process for any course [23:16] as this is not being represented as a simple public wiki [23:16] sounds like it could suffer from design by committee [23:16] I think we should encourage participation but there needs to be some kind of training / education / approval process to courses [23:16] IMO [23:16] it is a 'course' and the project team should have that stand for something more than "its there" [23:16] pleia2: I'd vote down anything more than what we do in the code world for code quality, structural semblence and correctness [23:16] I think we just need to find a balance that yields quality material and doesn't scare off contributors [23:16] +1 pleia2 [23:17] every team I know of has such things, wiki team has standards, MOTU has more formal training [23:17] again... I was raising this as more of an FYI -- something for us to think about [23:17] ok [23:17] cprofitt: *nod* [23:17] sorry I was running late to work this mornin [23:17] did I miss anything particularly interesting? [23:17] bodhi_zazen: You don't have to be in the wiki team to edit the wiki and you don't have to be a MOTU to have a PPA or LP project [23:18] That is not the same thing doctormo [23:18] we are not a ppa [23:18] ppa != universe repositories [23:18] ........ thanks Pleia2 [23:18] and the wiki team will remove poor quality pages [23:18] doctormo: as I understand it we have a specific outline that we want courses to be written for, and we want to keep some semblence of order and uniformity [23:18] I know, that's why I'm suggesting a distinction be made between course creation and patching, and publication [23:19] Lets move on... we all have to think about course approval... and I am glad that we are thinking about it... [23:19] I think a lack of standards or some kind of process will be problematic [23:19] +1 bodhi_zazen [23:19] we need to have high standards [23:19] cprofitt: Can you bring this up outside of meeting too, during a hack session and we can iron out that document? [23:19] doctormo, yes [23:20] [TOPIC] Theme / Branding [23:20] New Topic: Theme / Branding [23:20] http://www.professionallearningboard.com/ [23:20] LINK received: http://www.professionallearningboard.com/ [23:20] that is an example site of a professional Moodle site and company [23:20] Vantrax: was working on branding, do not know if he needs assistance :) [23:21] lol [23:21] doctormo, this is your topic... [23:21] Sure [23:21] mo is working on branding, im just having a go at hacking up a theme [23:21] I've done a few bits of branding so far, people have been happy, I'd like some feedback but also [23:22] ... I want agreement to create a few sized images, animated or not which will be used to link from people's blogs to our learning website when done [23:22] sounds great [23:22] And I'll need a page, static, with which we can put all these bits and bobs on and invite community to market for us [23:22] (not animated please :)) [23:23] what are your thought on the PLB site I linked too? [23:23] http://www.professionallearningboard.com/ [23:23] LINK received: http://www.professionallearningboard.com/ [23:23] It's good [23:23] I like the basic introductory page [23:23] Some nice big page, anyone want to go into a photo for the main index page? :-P === montelEdwards is now known as MontelEdwards === WelshDragon is now known as YDdraigGoch [23:25] doctormo, I would think that would be a good thing... [23:25] oh, good point [23:25] in our case I would like to see a 'student', a 'business person', a 'technican' and a 'developer' [23:25] I have a classroom, I'll get some pictures done :-) [23:25] I think that would be a nice fit... yes? [23:25] the index page im working on rotates pictures that are in the theme folder [23:26] Vantrax, that would be nice too... [23:26] so we can put a few pictures in [23:26] Vantrax: A lot of the moodle themes I've seen are too busy and complex [23:26] there are some samples in the test one [23:26] can we have a rotating set of images that display four at once like the PLB site? [23:26] Vantrax: Is the base one we've got simple enough for our needs? [23:26] doctormo: yes [23:26] cprofitt: no, thats too complicated [23:27] really? [23:27] could probably do it with a php script [23:27] I would think 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | [23:27] Vantrax: Can we put it as an action to get together with me at a time of your choosing to get me set up with the code base and you can run me down with theme creation? [23:27] in a square... [23:27] Then we can work together on it [23:28] have each one be a 'type' and images rotated through based on that type [23:28] doctormo: im putting the code base I have into ubuntu one atm [23:28] I did something like that in ASP.Net [23:28] basically its header, rotating picture, dynamic menu, then normal theme [23:29] Vantrax: into "Ubuntu One" sharing serivce? [23:29] OK... that seems well in hand... [23:29] year [23:29] yer [23:29] [TOPIC] Co-Ordinated Release [23:29] New Topic: Co-Ordinated Release [23:29] your topic again doctormo [23:30] Any plans on releasing blog posts and other marketing push when we have the legals and theming done? [23:30] We can't release after we have content, but we do need to think about talking to the wider community and getting them involved. [23:30] my work so far has centered around contacting and discussing with existing teams in Ubuntu [23:30] (which created the contact list on the front page) [23:31] I think, on a quick take, that we have two release points... [23:31] 1) Ready for contributors [23:31] 2) Ready for learners (actual release) [23:31] cprofitt: +1 [23:31] cprofitt: +1 [23:31] soon as we have a theme running we can do the announcment for contributors [23:31] I'm taking about ready for contributors [23:32] * Vantrax is sorry for holding that up [23:32] No we need legal too [23:32] Vantrax: you still have a blog entry queued up for release when we're sorted legally, right? [23:32] for that we need to get all the legal stuff settled [23:32] so we know what license(s) we will accept [23:32] yes pleia2 [23:32] there may be some leeway in allowing authors to choose within certain licenses [23:32] or there may not be [23:33] * DougieRichardson waves to dinda [23:33] until we know that it would be difficult to 'recruit' authors [23:33] * dinda waves to Dougie et al [23:33] I also think we have our training course (uploaded already) tested and ready to run [23:34] other thoughts? [23:34] +1 [23:34] * cprofitt waves to dinda [23:34] cprofitt: Need all core members trained on that, see next entry [23:34] we can make a "Sandbox" on the test server [23:34] what meeting is this? [23:34] I highly recommend a sandbox [23:35] MontelEdwards: Ubuntu Community Learning Project [23:35] so... we really need to have Canonical (aka dinda) get us introduced to SFLC [23:35] Will the training course be accredited in any way? [23:35] doctormo, oh, i see. [23:35] I've learned a great deal just this last week playing in our Moodle sandbox [23:35] I will set up a sandbox on the test server then ;) [23:35] RoboNuggie: No [23:35] cprofitt: I sent the email back to our attorney asking for the invite but then our attorney went on holiday for a week [23:36] dinda, ok... thanks [23:36] I guess even lawyers are allowed time off [23:36] :-) [23:36] hehe [23:36] dinda: Is it worth getting in touch with them directly? [23:36] RoboNuggie: that is the reason for canonical's training [23:36] yeah lots of folks slacking off this week [23:36] [TOPIC] Core Staff [23:36] New Topic: Core Staff [23:37] I have one serious question under this topic... [23:37] doctormo: yes, you are free to contact them directly [23:37] dinda: Aye free to, but is it a good idea [23:37] we do not have a structure or policy yet for members... but I think we need to consider dropping everyone that has not been active in these meetings... [23:37] from the 'TEAM' [23:37] doctormo: can't see why not, you don't have to go any further than asking them basic questions, seeing if its worth prusuing [23:38] and then when we develop a process for membership we can invite people to join [23:38] I think we were far too loose with that in the first place [23:38] cprofitt: are you suggesting that people need to make a certain number of meetings to be members of the team ? [23:38] though that will be tough to correct for fear of bent feelings [23:38] cprofitt: you might want to think about a tiered system ala the doc team. . . and others [23:38] bodhi_zazen, no [23:38] I am not suggesting that at all. [23:38] * bodhi_zazen listens [23:38] I am suggesting that currently we have members that have not been involved in anyway [23:39] and we have no structure for members [23:39] I would not remove people fromt he 'team', there is no such thing [23:39] yes, that will be an issue with any volunteer team :) [23:39] there's a larger public group all can join, then more limited leadership or steering teams with 'commit' access or other [23:39] There is no such thing as members [23:39] so it may be best to drop all of them... (launchpad) [23:39] dinda: +1 [23:39] and then after we setup the structure we can follow it to have 'members' [23:39] dinda: +1 [23:39] dinda, that would be a good suggestion too... [23:39] not removing, but form different upper level teams [23:40] for now the only other level would be 'board' [23:40] ubuntu-learning-commitors? [23:40] we may eventually need (when we have it set) Authors, Instructors, Reviewers... [23:40] I like dinda's general suggestion, call it what you want doctormo "team" "members" "elite" what have you [23:40] we have time to come up with the titles... [23:41] +1 ; team structure FTW [23:41] but we need to be more careful in the future... and the team must follow any guidelines we establish for membership [23:41] cprofitt: were you worried that absent members might hurt the group somehow? [23:41] cprofitt: I don't believe that we have made an error in the past [23:41] cprofitt: this is probably all related to our Structure document that we're going to follow up with on-list [23:41] dinda, it is not about absent members [23:41] we are unlikely to come up with a document that will not need to be revised cprofitt [23:41] keep it general [23:41] but we will have people that have more specific skills [23:41] like bug-control [23:42] bodhi_zazen, I agree revision appears to happen even in countries several hundred years old... we will be no different [23:42] I've found it harder to setup proper 'roles' in the Moodle system than others I've worked with. . . [23:42] I would not want a person that has authored no courses being put on the 'authors' team [23:42] but there needs to be roles defied and a process for attaining and if necessary removing people from roles 9either they give the post up, move on, absence, disruptive, etc, etc) [23:43] +1 bodhi_zazen [23:43] it's been tricky to give folks the proper system level vs. course level roles in order to do what they need in the system [23:43] I suggest we start with a few "basics" [23:43] that is all I am talking about... sorry if my language does not convey my meaning accurately [23:43] I see this team being more like bug-control [23:43] so you might want to think about how roles map to membership [23:43] authors, instructors, steudent, admins [23:44] with a central team (for those interested) and specialized teams that membership is attained and reviewed in [23:44] correct, the ones I've struggled with are course creator and non-editing teacher [23:44] how so dinda ? [23:44] I wanted to have course creators make the courses but not be the instructor/teacher [23:44] it turns out if I gave folks that role then they couldn't see certain key files [23:45] dinda, that is possible [23:45] I will ask the PLB folks for some advice [23:45] I ended up having to make almost everyone, including course reviewers a temporary instructor [23:45] dinda, in case you missed the link - http://www.professionallearningboard.com/ [23:45] Student, Teacher? All teachers are students and visa versa, that role is redundent I think. [23:45] I wrote a course for them over a year ago and they have authors and instructors... as two different groups [23:45] i think that is a good idea cprofitt [23:46] doctormo: officially within moodle there are defined roles [23:46] doctormo: true, but each role means something different for Moodle [23:46] doctormo, not in terms of a moodle course [23:46] Aye, this is a problem we will have for moodle [23:46] LOL doctormo [23:46] I know a few people that will write, but dont want to actually instruct and vice versa [23:46] you do not want a 'student' modifying the course [23:46] Vantrax, exactly [23:46] some people may have the time to be an instructor, but not feel they have the skill to write a course [23:46] Of course, no one should be able to create courses but for those in the commitors/authors team [23:46] and others have the ability to write a course but not be an instructor [23:47] I will ask PLB [23:47] [ACTION] cprofitt to ask PLB how to make instructors and authors as two different groups [23:47] doctormo: well that is what we are discussing, or are you suggesting students have admin and teaching responsibilities as well ? [23:47] ACTION received: cprofitt to ask PLB how to make instructors and authors as two different groups [23:47] there really need to be some kind of structure, a free for all will not work [23:48] [TOPIC] Open Floor [23:48] New Topic: Open Floor [23:48] cprofitt: that is supposedly the role of course creator - to design/develop but not teach a course [23:48] bodhi_zazen: My problem would be if students did not have access to the entire course material in order for them to take up teaching [23:48] we have 13 minutes left... [23:48] I would like annon teaching [23:48] does anyone have any other topics they wish to have addressed? [23:48] cprofitt: yes, my last entry on the agenda [23:48] ro access is not the same as rw access and to be honest I do not know the roles in moodle that well [23:49] you can make custom roles or curtomize existing ones [23:49] that was our last topic doctormo [23:49] fyi: http://www.goshen.edu/moodle/index.html [23:49] the next upcoming Moodle Moot - I'm considering going [23:49] please feel free to address it more... as I appeared to hi-jack it on you [23:49] What about the one detailing how we are going to teach each other all required things, such as the moodle course it's self and other useful stuff? [23:49] dinda: northern indiana? sigh :) [23:50] * pleia2 wants to go somewhere exciting! [23:50] pleia2: tell me about it - i was hoping for the bahamas or something nice ;) [23:50] doctormo: I think the whole project is quite large, and thus a team effort will be required :) [23:51] Does anyone have any thoughts one way or another about moving to hosting with Canonical ? [23:51] Rather then my server ? [23:51] bodhi_zazen: Don't do it! It's a trap! :-D [23:51] lol [23:52] That is what I thought doctormo :) [23:52] bodhi_zazen: you might want to make a list of pros and cons [23:52] the questions would be: [23:52] bodhi_zazen: Moving to Canonical hosting would force our legal hand, we wouldn't be allowed NC. [23:52] doctormo: what? [23:52] 1. may be require for learn.ubuntu.com [23:52] would also need to have roles in Moodle defined as clearly as possible [23:52] doctormo: canonical doesn't care about our license [23:52] there is that too doctormo [23:52] dinda: Can you confirm, I thought the policy was no restrictive content hosting. [23:53] 2. Would be access to server (ie root) [23:53] root access is probably extremely helpful as we get set up [23:53] doctormo: elmo recommended (with his ex-cc hat) that the license be cc-by-sa [23:53] Once we are up and established, probably not as critical [23:53] bodhi_zazen: oh, have you had your meeting with the sysadmins yet? [23:54] no not yet :) [23:54] I think we should hold off some discussion until questions asked at our last meeting are answered :) [23:54] so we're not all sitting around speculating further [23:54] dinda: So I was mistaken? I thought there was a question over weather none open source content was permitted. Seemed it wasn't. [23:54] would recommend getting the policies for Moodle roles and also theme, other global settings changed. [23:54] I did get an offer to assist with sys admin, which is awesome [23:54] I agree... we need to get the legal questions answered [23:55] debates and speculation between us do not move us forward [23:55] I put in a request on our server to have the Book Module installed and no idea when that might happen [23:55] so admin requests can be really slow once the system in under Canonical control [23:55] That would be the downside of moving to Canonical hosting ^^ === lukjad007 is now known as Calvinandhobbes [23:56] bodhi_zazen: if you know anything about which modules you would also want installed that would be helpful too [23:56] we would not be able to change as fast if you wanted various features, such as openid or Book module, etc === Calvinandhobbes is now known as lukjad007 [23:56] dinda: I do not think we know yet :) [23:57] My opinion would be to keep our server for now, and when we are up and running, know what we want, and are ready for learn.ubuntu.com => migrate [23:57] there is a lot of work to be done to get to that point, IMO [23:57] bodhi_zazen: would best if you had a full setup you could migrate over, rather than starting from a fresh install [23:58] +1 dinda [23:58] +1 [23:58] I think proper planning and a staging server can make the 'delay' factor not an issue [23:58] key is proper planning cprofitt :) [23:58] +1 bodhi_zazen [23:58] bodhi_zazen: and if you have any knowledge of modules that do revision control, I'm all ears! [23:59] you mean for moodle ? [23:59] dinda: Dn't you have a whole team that does bzr development there at Canonical? [23:59] svn :) [23:59] #endmeeting [23:59] Meeting finished at 17:59. [23:59] thanks for coming everyone... we are at the end of our official meeting. [23:59] Good meeting I thought [23:59] please bring further discussion to #ubuntu-learning [23:59] thanks, keep up the good work all!