kirby urner wrote:
The part that makes me especially queasy is the CP4E section on pages 10-11. I wish I had more to say there. It's fairly clear to those of us who weren't there that there were some problems, but it's not especially clear what they were or what we should learn from them. I'd very much appreciate input from those who were actually there!
Where is "there" exactly?
From his email, "there" are those who were involved in the CP4E project and who can tell us why it failed to reach fruition. I've never found a good explanation myself, that didn't pull punches and told the story.
As to "losing focus" and/or "herding cats" on edu-sig, I'm not sure if that's what happened, or if we're simply seeing from different perspectives.
For example, the Jesuits, with hundreds of years of pedagogy to their credit, thousands of mostly-man hours designing curriculum, aren't necessarily interested in vetting their proposals to teach Python in some trademarked Jesuitical way via some organ within Python.org. They'll work within the Vatican or whatever it is that they do.
Just a random example. Schools aren't obligated to be public with their planning is my point. The fact that Python itself is open source doesn't change that fact.
If we have the destination in common but do not agree on the path, we cannot share the journey nor the burdens thereof and must say 'fare thee well'.
So whereas I'm hopeful that edu-sig will continue to be a source of interesting filings (your paper and drafting process a case in point), I'm not expecting it to be much more than that, at least not for the many faculties with already semi-set ways of working together.
Lots of proprietary stuff goes on that we only learn about on edu-sig long after the fact -- and that's OK (not a problem).
Sadly, these people miss out on a diversity of viewpoints, because they did not share their problems. Perhaps that is their fear, that someone will solve them but not in a way to their liking and without their aid. Better to keep the problems. -Jeff