I would be interested in feedback on the announcement found at this page
Particularly the bit that says
"The initiative is supported by Moodle PTY, the independent company behind the Moodle project."
No, that statement from them is untrue. We do not support it. And they haven't even got the name of the Moodle company right (it's Moodle Pty Ltd)
David Mudrak spelled it out here a month ago: https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=315883
We're really glad if anyone want to help with reviews but we have existing guidelines and mechanisms for all this that should be used.
I'm just catching up properly with this thread Martin.
On reading the post from David you refer to (https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=315883#p1266383) he is not as strong as you. In fact he said "I'll be happy to see your POET group involved in providing these QA reviews in the Moodle plugins directory. Please do not hesitate to get in contact with me to set up the environment for your people to start publishing them. Looking forward to your help!" which is quite positive. I can see how they (POET) may have taken this as 'support'.
@Gareth re your post https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=317916#p1274702 you show a little angst.
I'm not sure it is like this, how you perceive it. The Moodle Partner installs I have had to do with all have diverse requirements for plugins. One just using Postgres, another charging us $$ for checking a plugin and then I change jobs and get another charge from a MP different company for the same plugin - with a different level of check. The check sheet of compliance for a company supporting 17 different moodle installs is a little different to ONE school and one Moodle. The stakes are high. Security requirements can be different. One small detail, quite OK for mere education can be different for a real estate company with a special requirement for audit trails.
They are not "marking' your work" Probably I'd say they are doing something in response to commercial realities in the area of their clients, their installs and plugins.
------
In general: I'm a little surprised at Martin's response, at it's bluntness.
Howard said:
"I'm completely mystified what the POET group is supposed to achieve other than confuse matters further. However, with my cynical hat on, I suspect there is rather more to it than may first appear. We shall see..."
Here: https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=315883#p1276311
COMMUNICATION. I do recognise the sarcasm in your comment here. But POET seems to be making up the communication gap slowly. These guys are not silly, we can assume they have a plan, but like the Association it may be a little bit emergent. They have a stake in Moodle, they will not undermine. But they have the right to extend things to suite their realities. I'm a minion. I have huge wheel spinning and wasted time with plugins and Moodle version decision. They are much bigger fish. Multiply the issues by a factor. Hence POET, a tiny little extra thing.
RATHER MORE TO IT. Maybe. Martin's business, above the level we work at.
"WE SHALL SEE..." Wise advice Howard.
So, probably in summary, I'll also wait: and hope that many end users benefit with cheaper, more functional, more stable Moodle Installs they pay real money for, delivered a little quicker with each new version.
David said "But there are at least two people needed to make a discussion happen." I hope the MoodleHQ guys are OK.
-----
A complete aside!! I'm now legal to review!!
@David. I'm interested to notice as I follow up Helen's post here: https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=315883#p1276367 that I now have a Write a review button. If you ever told me about this, I missed it. I will press it sometime and see what happens.
Good luck all.
-Derek
Some background information in this thread:
"Remote-Learner US no longer a Moodle partner?"
https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=316489
"Remote-Learner US no longer a Moodle partner?"
https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=316489
I read all of this http://poetgroup.org/mod/page/view.php?id=2 this morning and was going to post in the Developers forum but been installing Windows 10.....
So, looking at it, I'm not happy. So far the plugins DB with forum support has worked well. Anthony B and David M have done and continue to perform an excellent and thankless task.
I see no reason for this 'Plugin Police' to arrive on the scene with no means I can see to challenge and argue against their 'guidelines', for example, the last line "Search forums and tracker for issues with the module" should read "Search forums and tracker for issues with the plugin". There seems to be no means of feedback or 'community', more like a dictatorship. Whereas Moodle is a community where everybody can have a say and if they wish raise issues that challenge policy.
With my plugins I endeavor to follow the evolving coding standards, go through the pain of code checker, fix bugs when they are reported, deal with security issues along the same lines and release as soon as I can if an fix is serious. For example, the release before last of Essential was the last one I wanted to release for M2.7, however, a security issue was raised, so I did fix and release a new version despite the time and effort involved. So I am already doing everything I can to make good plugins.
So.... what happens when a plugin does not meet their standards? Is it 'banned' by them? Are you given a 'warning' and a time limit to fix? How much dirt would they throw around?
If a plugin is good and passes, what happens then? Is it shown off in a good light?
What's with the line 'Technique - use an IDE, like Eclipse, and open all files with "folding" enable and "collapse all".'? I use an IDE for Java development, but for PHP it can be overkill, Notepad++ works fine.
But... quite frankly Moodle is run and orchestrated by Moodle HQ and therefore that's were the standards for the plugins should remain and be enforced. So should I take any notice? Perhaps time will tell. And I'm worried about their 'true motive', is there a hidden agenda?
If anybody wants to QA any of my plugins (Essential is the only one: https://moodle.org/plugins/report/index.php?report=reviews) then I welcome constructive feedback and will take on board any comments. My active plugin list currently stands at:
Course formats:
- Collapsed Topics
- Grid
- Columns
- Noticeboard
Themes:
- Shoelace
- Shoehorn
- Campus
- Essential
Hi Gareth,
as Martin said above, the POET thing is those companies' own initiative with zero relation to the Moodle HQ and the Moodle plugins directory. What makes me sad is that we explicitly asked these people several times in the past to contribute with plugins reviews; with no response. We have mechanisms built into the Plugins directory that were designed exactly for these purposes (e.g. reviews, sets, awards etc). Instead, it seems they decided to start building their own list of "approved" plugins, whatever it means.
Several statements in their announcements made my eyebrows rise. In any case, the Moodle Plugins directory remains and will remain the only official repository of community contributed plugins supported by Moodle, with its own approval procedures, criteria and quality standards. I believe we have demonstrated clearly that the community involvement in setting up this environment is greatly encouraged (e.g. policy decisions in the tracker, guardians programme etc).
Take care, and thanks for all your hard work on maintaining your plugins. Be sure there are people out there who know the value of such work and appreciate it.
Thank you David
We use a Moodle partner for hosting and the process for getting plugins approved even by partners seems to be pretty disparate depending on who you use but all partners I've come across have a cost associated with having a plugin deployed. I don't see the POET as a negative, though this thread kinda casts it in that light whether intentionally or not.
If it's possible that we might get more plugins approved and vetted by the Moodle hosting companies so that we (clients of Moodle through Partners and otherwise) have a greater degree of freedom to leverage customizations and the cool stuff that's contributed and not have to pay for it, I see that as a good great thing.
As it stands now the process of trying to get a new plugin vetted and available by our hosting company would potentially take weeks and require us to outlay direct costs ($) to have it reviewed. Sounds like the process could now be faster and cheaper for all those companies and schools which are under the umbrella of the current POET members (which is a good thing).
Is it possible that plugins here get a badge (like the Moodle hat award) to let others know that they've undergone additional review? It might be useful for others not using one of the partners/non-partners named as POET for hosting to understand that the code is up to date and meets all guidelines. I can see why tighter integration might be better between the group and the plugin database.
Joseph, I believe everybody here agrees that having more plugins reviews is a good thing, indeed. To me, it is more about how these reviews are going to be provided and shared with the plugin author and the Moodle community.
As you can read in my reply to the initial announcement by Daniel Laverde, I've been actually calling for tighter integration with the tools and processes already established within the Plugins directory - which includes the reviews, badges, awards and sets, as you suggest. I got no comment back on that offer. Instead, they set up their own site, which now claims the "intent is to work with the Moodle plugin database to integrate, and not duplicate, efforts" (which is a progress and closer to reality compared to the previous statement there).
I am open to discussions on how this integration should work. But there are at least two people needed to make a discussion happen.
got it, understood and agreed. If the conversation can happen I think everyone wins.
We're in the same situation as Joseph, so I would support anything that might reduce the need for Moodle partners to perform security checks on plugins before deploying them for us (at cost). I'm not suggesting security checks aren't needed...just supporting the notion of ongoing conversations here that might help with that process.
Phil
Yes, constructive feedback on plugins is welcome, but it is more welcome when it is done in the spirit of, and using the tools of, the community.
Some odd omissions in the review guidelines, e.g. no consideration of whether there are PHPunit or Behat tests.
Anyway, I would be tempted to say that any review of one of my plugins is a derivative work of that plugin, therefore should be GPL, therefore we can copy it into the reviews area of the plugins DB. However, I think I know enough copyright law to be sure that is a wrong interpretation.
As one of the members of the POET group, I would like to help explain the initiative.
First, let me clarify the confusion around our initiative being supported by Moodle Pty. This was an accidental statement that had been used in an earlier version of the description. It was based on a conversation one of the partners had with Martin Dougiamas, and was not intended to associate the group in any official way with Moodle HQ. That description has been corrected.
Second, I want to clarify what the group is for. We have created this group to foremost, make it easier for POET group members to share the plugins they use and approve. The members have identified that it is laborious to manage and maintain sets of specific plugins used in their Moodle installations and wish to spread the work around. It is not intended to usurp or replace the plugin database on “moodle.org”. We intend to utilize and reference that plugin database whenever possible.
Each of the members independently developed a plugin review process. This helped us significantly, but it caused problems for the developers of plugins. Developers had to work with each us individually, and work to get their plugin certified. It added cost and time to the process for both the member and the plugin provider.
The plugins that will be referenced by the group will be ones that have been “certified” by any of the group members to use in their Moodle instances. Group members have recognized the value of that certification among the members, and are offering that information to the greater Moodle community through the POET group.
We are not trying to replace any function of the Moodle project. Whether or not the community finds any value in our functions will be up to the community, and we welcome suggestions and contributions. We will also welcome new members soon, once we get ourselves better organized.
Our future communications will be worded more carefully to ensure that there is no confusion between “official” Moodle activities and those of the POET group.
Mike,
I get what you are saying, but I think how it's been done hasn't been the best...even now...
You say...
"We have created this group to foremost, make it easier for POET group members to share the plugins they use and approve. The members have identified that it is laborious to manage and maintain sets of specific plugins used in their Moodle installations and wish to spread the work around."
The website says...
"...have formed the Partners of Open source Educational Technologies (POET) Working Group to formulate common quality standards and guidelines that will improve and streamline the development process of plugins for Moodle"
Those two things aren't the same thing really.
You're saying that you're doing this for the betterment of the companies (and their clients)...and that's great for both the companies and their clients!
But the website seems to suggest that it's being done to resolve issues with the process (or to improve the process) on the main Moodle site.
Not the intention I know (I have to stress that), but that's how many are reading it I think.
Phil
Hi Phil -
While the two things may not sound the same now, they are part of the same plan. Step one is/was to get the initial members to agree on a set of standards and guidelines that would govern how we would review and certify. What's there is the initial work, primarily based on the Moodle guidelines and ones used in each organization. We have also received some good additional ideas from the community.
Thanks for your feedback, and we will continue to improve the communicated message.
mike
Thanks Mike for this explanation. It clarifies things and as Philip says, it would be nice to have the purpose of the group more clearly communicated at its site, too. As an inspiration for further clarification, here are some notes and questions I would personally like to have answered.
- Will the list of POET certified plugins be available to the public or to the POET's clients only?
- Will additional information (review details) be part of the published certificate? I mean, will POET publish just the list of certified plugins, or will there be the full review (with all the checked criteria and notes) published, too? If so, will its license allow copying & sharing at other sites?
- Will the reviews be anonymous or will the actual reviewer's name be known?
- You state that "Developers had to work with each us individually". Is the cooperation between the POET reviewers and the plugin maintainers going to happen via standard open channels such as the plugin's bug tracker?
I am aware that it may be too early for some of these details being answered. I am just trying to understand better why the inbuilt mechanisms in the Plugins directory were not sufficient for your group's needs - so that we know where we can improve it.
Thanks David.
Our intention is to make our lists and information available to the community. As far as anonymity, we haven't really given that any thought. I cannot see any reason to make the information anonymous but we'll discuss that.
As far as cooperation between the reviewers and plugin maintainers, our preference is to have that happen in open channels. But there are many plugins used by the community and POET members that are maintained outside of those channels by the providers. While we can "encourage" them to use those channels, we can't force them. And if the plugins represent significant functional advantage to the group, we will still work with those maintainers.
I do need to communicate more with you David, to find out what all of the features are that are available in the current Moodle plugin database. I'm not sure any of us are aware of all of them. Is there a document you can point me to that defines all of these?
mike
I have created a new discussion in the General plugins forum to better show and describe what we are trying to do. Discussion is welcome.
mike
Their website is down with a database error, and we have been told to direct vendors there to look at the additional security criteria they have added for plugins. Anyone have that documentation so I can send it to our vendors?
My apologies for that. The problem has been fixed.
We're in the process of updating all of our documentation. We have posted our most recent reviews as listed here - http://poetgroup.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=4. I recommend looking there.
I would also be interested in hearing what you need from these reviews.
mikw
We are told that:
"We have disapproved these versions 2016032100 on Moodle 3.0 because the
plugins do not allow uninstall, with an ‘Uninstall’ HTML element that is
un-clickable for the filter type, and appears to be absent completely
for the repository type per screenshots. Please feel free to contact if
you have any questions, or to notify if a newer version becomes
available that resolves these issues."
But in the scoring system, Security is under construction. I need to have something to send the vendor. If we don't get this plugin fixed we can't update, it has worked since about 2.5.
Note: we were also informed that the plugin failed for 2.8 and 2.9 for the same reason.
Hi Vicke -
Can you tell me which plugin(s) it is that you are getting tested?
mike
Hi Mike,
yeah, that might help. It's the Ensemble video filter and repository
Ensemble Video repository
repository_ensemble
and
and
Ensemble Video filter
filter_ensemble
Hi Vicke -
It looks like the new 3.0 version (which says it is still in development), has introduced a circular dependency that makes it impossible to uninstall the plugins. I have posted an issue to the maintainer here - https://github.com/ensembleVideo/moodle-filter_ensemble/issues/1
mike
There is nothing wrong with circular dependencies.
E.g. I have qtype_opaque and qbehaviour_opaque, both of which depend on the other (in the sense that is declared in the version.php files). Since neither plugin will work without the other, that is correct.
It may be that Moodle's plugin uninstaller cannot cope with that yet. If so, that is a bug in Moodle core, not in the plugins concerned.
Hi Tim -
Possibly a core bug? But not sure how it would deal with the situation. The uninstall logic checks to see if there are any dependent plugins, and if there are, won't allow the "uninstall" operation. So if plugin 'A' depends on plugin 'B', and plugin 'B' depends on plugin 'A', then neither will ever be able to be uninstalled.
I added MDL-53784 to deal with the lack of indication as to what the reasons are, but maybe it needs to be expanded?
When you try to uninstall a plugin that has others that depend on it (whether the links are circular or not) it should offer you the choice to uninstall them all.
E.g. if you ask to un-install qtype_stack (perish the thought!) then it should ask you whether you also want to uninstall quiz_stack and qformat_stack at the same time, or Cancel.
2.9 is getting booted back as well for the same reason.
I believe I checked 2.9 and I was able to uninstall both plugins, so you may want to ask for more information from your testers.
mike
Thanks, I have referenced this thread on the ticket I have open.
Apparently not so much on 2.9. I would like to know why a plugin would fail simply because it does not have an uninstall link in the list of plugins?
We don't want to uninstall the thing.
Hi Vicke -
To be clear, POET has not failed the identified plugin. We haven't even officially reviewed it. I'm guessing you are dealing with one of the member organizations who is using the same process.
The reason a plugin would fail if it cannot be uninstalled (in my opinion) would be because it is not meeting the minimum requirements of a Moodle plugin. And if it can't uninstall, it is likely throwing an error.
In the case of the 3.0 plugin, it is because of the circular dependency, and the fact that Moodle core won't allow the uninstall. I'm not sure how that would be resolved easily, so I would suggest that if everything else is fine, that should not prevent you from using it. The circular dependency issue is something that has to be worked out with core Moodle to resolve.
mike