General developer forum

Hi Paul Evans,

Long time no see.

I know that there are loads of things to be ironed out but lets say one is wondering which Moodle to use for a course starting in 2 weeks time. Or x weeks time. There are a lot of nice new features in 1.5 (like RSS blocks, messaging, meta-courses, the-rumoured-user-profile-customistation, and even the tiny ones we paid for: popup quizes and group enrollment by enrollment password) so it would be great to be able to use them, but one needs to have an idea of when it is going to happen.

I am lucky because our term does not start till April. I am pretty darn sure that 1.5 will be ready by then so I am preparing course pages using 1.5. But if I were starting in 3 weeks time, or 2 weeks time, then I'd have a knotty decision. So irrespective of what estimates have gone before, or how "late" (?? this is free so nothing is "late") it is going to be, the more information that course creators have the better.  

I think that we need to have a non-stress way of asking, and a non-stress way of replying.

I would like the developers to be able to say "at this rate next year!" and then the next day "yeah we fixed it! It looks like next week," and then the next day again "Oops, it looks like it is going to be about a month," or anything honest, because anything is better than a complete-guess.

That means asking is fine. But anyone who complains saying "*but* you said it would be ready last week!" should be diced. (Jason did not say "but" so he should just escape dicing, just)

For those that have students squawking with open mouths, and would really like the new features, then even vague estimates are a real help.

All hail the developers.

Timothy
 

Inasmuch as Jussi has put forth well-justified reasoning for wanting to be kept up to date on development, having to justify wanting timeline information to you Chris Ainsworth is getting rather stale.    Although this last of your bulldog responses to a timeline question included some rather helpful information, in my opinion, your remarks only serve to add a haze of punitive negativity to these typically upbeat and positive forums.  Please refer to Timothy's post as an example of a constructive response.

It is obvious that Martin intends to keep us up to date as much as is humanly possible, hence this post.  Thank you for that Martin. 

Chardelle 

Jussi

There are a number who have similar responsibilities, roles and tasks.  Some are e-learning professionals (formal qualifications in the area) others have been forced into the role and struggle to understand the full concept and others are techies who have been thrust into the position because IT is the focus and without IT support the the system falls in a hole.  Then there are those managers who have just had the technology thrust upon them because upper management is looking at cost cutting.

During a given workday like you -

• administer and maintain a Moodle server  (though at this stage not as many users at the moment but in 5 years the numbers will be staggering 2.5 million participants)
• teach and tutor teachers using Moodle across three different organisations (emergency services, private training organisation, university)
• support the 1st tier user support  and 2^nd/3^rd tier engineering support
• develop strategic planning for an emergency service agency in conjunction with a university
• offer eLearning and IT expertise to various organisational working groups across a state government 
• develop curriculum that is usable in a  flexible learning environment within a university on a national basis
• participate on working parties developing whole of agency and integration in whole of government delivery of flexible learning strategies
• assist Private Register Training Organisations develop working strategies in the development of business plans for the integration of e-learning into their organisation and government funding

The government working parties are interesting in that one has to foresee what will happen in 2 years time, as this is the timeline government budgets (and for that matter commercial developers of software) work on.   What does the Government provide for that service not even enough funding to employ a researcher / project officer part time. What are the savings millions of dollars. I have significant opposition to reviewing Moodle over commercial offerings (some are local offerings).  I am sure a few in the power broker area have set projects up to fail, but as long as I have breath and can put a sound business case forward to the powers to be, commercial product will always be a distant second the offerings of Moodle and more importantly the Moodle community.  That is where the strength lies.

I am lucky also in that I get to review Alpha and Beta products from a number of suppliers, however that privilege comes with a caveat of non-disclosure.  Like yourself, one ask what will the product be in the fall but more importantly what will it be like in 2 years time what visions are there for the product, what support, and in fact what future.  Martin was asked a great question at the NZ Moot with regards to a what if say WebCT/BB/Microsoft offered him say 10 million, 50 million, 100 million dollars for Moodle would he take it the long answer he would consider the short answer NO WAY  Integrity and commitment to the longer term survival of his passion for what he is doing, supported by a dedicated team of developers. Given a couple of more years, and the development team will be full time and paid, then we will see Moodle mature into a flexible piece of software. 

We will always have those that want the latest and greatest and want it YESTERDAY.     

As a e-learning professional deploy a 1.5 alongside your existing  production server, cross load courses, even use a trial group on the understanding that is evaluation and there will be issues to deal with, try and break 1.5, report the  issues, problems, and suggestions for improvement.  That way Moodle will become stronger in the wider marketplace organisationally but more importantly for students/participants.