Just thinking out load here, but regarding the migration to Sakai 3, I'd bet
the majority of the user population would be comfortable with the idea that
Sakai 3 is under development and that our current plans are to migrate once
the platform provides significant advantages over 2.x (or in addition to
2.x).

Stating that we are planning a gradual migration is probably enough, without
specifically mentioning "hybrid mode." Technically, that's implied in the
"gradual" part. I agree with Bob's idea about not yet having enough "real"
information about Sakai 3 or the Hybrid model, to make any concrete
statements.

Regarding the governance process, prioritizing new features, and focusing on
a platform, it seems logical that once Sakai 3 is up-and-running (let's say
in hybrid mode), that 3 would be our primary focus in moving forward. But
much would depend upon how useful and stable it is, with consideration given
to where we are on the migration timeline.

So, for instance, as long as we're not at a point where we're really close
to retiring our 2.x implementation, I think we'd be foolish not to consider
upgrading or adding 2.x tools (or possibly upgrading to a new 2.x release),
especially if there are significant improvements or enhancements. I don't
see a problem in the committee(s) shifting focus/priority from time to time
in order to provide the best possible user experience. After scrutinizing
the technical requirements, training requirements, etc., of course.

-- 
Dave Scoville
SSCP/SEAS-IT
Miami University
109C Benton Hall
Office: 513-529-0794
Mobile: 513-593-4478


> From: "D'Arcus, Bruce Dr." <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: IT Services Sakai Team <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 12:12:06 -0400
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: question on messaging for future roadmap
> 
> So as we start to engage the wider MU community on the migration, I
> wonder: have we settled on a story and plan for the future evolution
> of Sakai at MU?
> 
> More specifically, have we figured out how we will deal with the
> migration to Sakai 3, and how we explain it?
> 
> It seem to me this question has bearing on a whole lot of details,
> from the technical implementation and development process, to the
> governance process (if a governance body prioritizes new features,
> which platform(s) do they target?), to building up support for the
> migration in general.
> 
> Do we:
> 
> a) just not talk about that now (this has been my impulse in talking
> to people new to this)?
> b) say we're planning a gradual migration that includes the hybrid
> mode as soon as it's ready, perhaps coupled with a pilot at some point
> next year?
> c) something else?
> 
> Not rhetorical questions; still not sure this list isn't some virtual
> black hole!
> -- 
> Bruce D'Arcus
> Associate Professor, Graduate Director
> Department of Geography
> Miami University
> 234 Shideler Hall
> Oxford, Ohio 45056