SSWG Notes - 2010-06-23

SSWG Agenda - 2010-06-23

Attendees

Recap of the Last Meeting's Discussion of Platform Costs

• Nobody is jumping at the chance to complete A Framework for Describing the Life-Cycle Cost of Software Systems.  Also, it will not directly address the issue of how platform choice affects life-cycle cost, since we have no projects that have tried more than one platform in parallel.
• The consensus of the group was that the Framework is useful as part of the SSWG's educational materials for UCD organizations units that are developing or acquiring software systems, and we will look for a good opportunity to test it on a real project, but we won't pursue it further at this time.
• What we will do is to gather some salary survey data that compares the cost of .NET and Java professionals and make that available to the IT Roadmap Coordinating Council, along with some revision to Preliminary Recommendations for Application Platforms to Foster Interoperability, Sharing, and Reuse to highlight the business issues associated with platform choice, as well as to present the salary survey data.

[After the meeting Anthony Drown found some salary survey from Payscale.com.  I will post it on the wiki under the Platform Strategy project. - DHW]

The ITAG Standard for Browser Support in Applications

• Web Standards and Browser Recommendations for UC Content Providers, ITAG's proposed standard for inter-campus applications, was discussed.
• The consensus was that UCD should adopt a standard for browser support in applications and services that is based on the ITAG standard, probably with minimal revision.
• The ITAG deferred a detailed discussion of mobile devices in its document.  It was suggested that we may want to say something more specific.
• Action:  Everyone should review the ITAG documents and send comments to the SSWG list by July 21 so that we can discuss a draft for campus vetting during our July 28 meeting.

The SSWG Standards Process

• Standards Process and Repository was discussed.  Everyone agreed in general with the proposed process.
• David Walker will check on what the process should be after the SSWG recommends a standard.  Right now, the process says that it is reviewed and approved by the IT Roadmap Coordinating Council.  It was observed that the 200-45 process involves both the Coordinating Council and CCFIT.
• Action:  Everyone should review the draft process for discussion at the July 28 meeting.  David Walker will also explore the possibility sharing the draft with the Coordinating Council.