Meeting Notes Review

= OSI-EDU-WG/Educators Meeting Notes, August 6, 2014 =

These notes are under review. If you participated in the meeting, please feel free to edit the notes as appropriate, or make comments for clarification and suggestions. If you had not participated, but have questions and additional thoughts and suggestions, please feel free to comment.

5

== Participants ==

* Ian Dolphin

* Wayne Mackintosh

* Joseph Potvin

* Ken Udas

== Discussion ==

The meeting topics centered around:

17

18

=== TOPIC 1 - Working Group ToR ===

19

20

Discussion and endorsement of the [[Educators Working Committee Terms of Reference>>doc:Working-Groups-Incubator-Projects.FreeLibreOpenWorksManagementEducation.Charter-OSI-EDU-WG-2014-2015.FLOW Educators Working Committee.WebHome||title="FLOW Educators Working Committee Terms of Reference"]], noting that we are happy to revisit the ToR as the working committee evolves and its identity grows.

21

22

=== ACTION/COMMITMENT ===

No immediate action.

=== TOPIC 2 - Extending Engagement & Learning About Current Capacity ===

27

28

1. We discussed how to extend interest in the FLOW project generally and the Educators Working Committee more specifically.

29

11. Identifying organizations and individuals who may be interested in participating in the Working Committee.

30

1. We discussed the likelihood that organizations and academic programming in computer science, software development, and other related fields might be more interested than project management. The project management field has lagged, and the other OSI-EDU-WG/Managers Working Committee will proactively advance this relationship. The OSI-EDU-WG/Managers Working Committee is focused upon organizations (and individual academics/teachers/trainers - scholars) that have built curriculum supporting FLOW, and in advancing the utility of the FLOW Syllabus as an __intermediate__ resource for educators (not a primary source, and not a final course design).

31

1. It was our feeling that although some organizations and curriculum may have capacity and instruction in technical aspects of FLOW/Working on open source environments, there has been less emphasis placed on participating in open communities.

32

1. Realizing though that we really do not know what is "out there" we decided to contact some colleagues to:

33

11. Generate interest in the FLOW/Educators Work

34

11. Elicit contributions and involvement

35

1. We also committed to conducting a survey to get a better understanding of activity and gaps in //FLOW capacity//^^ (Comment: Hey, there's a great new metaphorical phrase! FLOW capacity.) ^^withing the educators community.

36

11. Contact organizations that may have conducted surveys to find out what they learned and to see if they are willing to share their survey instruments.

37

11. Prepare an instrument for a global survey (perhaps we should discussion regionalization of the instruments as well?)

38

11. We want to make sure we keep our work mufti-lingual as appropriate. Joseph & Ian agreed to have the survey instrument translated into eloquent French and Spanish (The commitment can extend to reporting an executive summary of results.)

39

11. We discussed "co-branding" of survey activity. We felt generally that co-branding with involved organizations makes a lot of sense (profile raising, better acceptance with recognized organizations leading to better survey participation and results, nature of inclusiveness, value of participation, etc.)

40

11. We discussed a time line resulting in the execution of the survey before the new year.

41

1. Some Potential Contacts (just mentioned during the conversation - building a resource page) (who is doing teaching, research, building curriculum, academic programs, sponsored research, governments, NGOs, Foundations, ect.)

42

11. OSS Watch

43

11. Open Labs (Oregon State University)

44

11. Educause

45

11. ACODE & [[CAUDIT >>url:https://www.caudit.edu.au/]]

46

1. Some Potential Networks for Distribution (just mentioned during the conversation - building a resource page)

47

11. Educause Openness CG

11. Apereo

11. OERu

11. etc...

=== ACTION COMMITMENT ===

53

54

55

We ought to indicate when the action has been taken so we have an idea of the status of our commitments.

56

57

58

**Ian** will contact Scott Wilson at OSS Watch to find out about any survey research they may have conducted and some colleagues on the Continent.

59

60

**Ken** will set-up pages to support these activities. (**to be actioned**)

61

62

**All** will contribute contact suggestions, distribution notworks and other suggestions.

63

64

**All** investigating an appropriate Survey Tool.

\\

Wiki source code of Meeting Notes Review

Applications

Navigation

author	version	line-number	content
		1	= OSI-EDU-WG/Educators Meeting Notes, August 6, 2014 =
		2
		3	{{info}}
		4	These notes are under review. If you participated in the meeting, please feel free to edit the notes as appropriate, or make comments for clarification and suggestions. If you had not participated, but have questions and additional thoughts and suggestions, please feel free to comment.
		5	{{/info}}
		6
		7	== Participants ==
		8
		9	* Ian Dolphin
		10	* Wayne Mackintosh
		11	* Joseph Potvin
		12	* Ken Udas
		13
		14	== Discussion ==
		15
		16	The meeting topics centered around:
		17
		18	=== TOPIC 1 - Working Group ToR ===
		19
		20	Discussion and endorsement of the [[Educators Working Committee Terms of Reference>>doc:Working-Groups-Incubator-Projects.FreeLibreOpenWorksManagementEducation.Charter-OSI-EDU-WG-2014-2015.FLOW Educators Working Committee.WebHome\|\|title="FLOW Educators Working Committee Terms of Reference"]], noting that we are happy to revisit the ToR as the working committee evolves and its identity grows.
		21
		22	=== ACTION/COMMITMENT ===
		23
		24	No immediate action.
		25
		26	=== TOPIC 2 - Extending Engagement & Learning About Current Capacity ===
		27
		28	1. We discussed how to extend interest in the FLOW project generally and the Educators Working Committee more specifically.
		29	11. Identifying organizations and individuals who may be interested in participating in the Working Committee.
		30	1. We discussed the likelihood that organizations and academic programming in computer science, software development, and other related fields might be more interested than project management. The project management field has lagged, and the other OSI-EDU-WG/Managers Working Committee will proactively advance this relationship. The OSI-EDU-WG/Managers Working Committee is focused upon organizations (and individual academics/teachers/trainers - scholars) that have built curriculum supporting FLOW, and in advancing the utility of the FLOW Syllabus as an __intermediate__ resource for educators (not a primary source, and not a final course design).
		31	1. It was our feeling that although some organizations and curriculum may have capacity and instruction in technical aspects of FLOW/Working on open source environments, there has been less emphasis placed on participating in open communities.
		32	1. Realizing though that we really do not know what is "out there" we decided to contact some colleagues to:
		33	11. Generate interest in the FLOW/Educators Work
		34	11. Elicit contributions and involvement
		35	1. We also committed to conducting a survey to get a better understanding of activity and gaps in //FLOW capacity//^^ (Comment: Hey, there's a great new metaphorical phrase! FLOW capacity.) ^^withing the educators community.
		36	11. Contact organizations that may have conducted surveys to find out what they learned and to see if they are willing to share their survey instruments.
		37	11. Prepare an instrument for a global survey (perhaps we should discussion regionalization of the instruments as well?)
		38	11. We want to make sure we keep our work mufti-lingual as appropriate. Joseph & Ian agreed to have the survey instrument translated into eloquent French and Spanish (The commitment can extend to reporting an executive summary of results.)
		39	11. We discussed "co-branding" of survey activity. We felt generally that co-branding with involved organizations makes a lot of sense (profile raising, better acceptance with recognized organizations leading to better survey participation and results, nature of inclusiveness, value of participation, etc.)
		40	11. We discussed a time line resulting in the execution of the survey before the new year.
		41	1. Some Potential Contacts (just mentioned during the conversation - building a resource page) (who is doing teaching, research, building curriculum, academic programs, sponsored research, governments, NGOs, Foundations, ect.)
		42	11. OSS Watch
		43	11. Open Labs (Oregon State University)
		44	11. Educause
		45	11. ACODE & [[CAUDIT >>url:https://www.caudit.edu.au/]]
		46	1. Some Potential Networks for Distribution (just mentioned during the conversation - building a resource page)
		47	11. Educause Openness CG
		48	11. Apereo
		49	11. OERu
		50	11. etc...
		51
		52	=== ACTION COMMITMENT ===
		53
		54	{{info}}
		55	We ought to indicate when the action has been taken so we have an idea of the status of our commitments.
		56	{{/info}}
		57
		58	Ian will contact Scott Wilson at OSS Watch to find out about any survey research they may have conducted and some colleagues on the Continent.
		59
		60	Ken will set-up pages to support these activities. (to be actioned)
		61
		62	All will contribute contact suggestions, distribution notworks and other suggestions.
		63
		64	All investigating an appropriate Survey Tool.
		65
		66
		67
		68
		69
		70	\\