Difference between revisions of "OCS Roadmap"

From PKP Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(12 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
;[[OCS Roadmap]]
+
=Development Roadmap=
:Future directions for OCS
+
  
'''Wishlist'''
+
You will find the OCS development roadmap for 2012 below. Please note that these dates are not fixed. OCS development is currently following two development branches: a 'stable' 2.3.x line which includes mainly bugfixes and will be an easy upgrade; and a 'master' 2.4 line, which includes large-scale changes in the underlying codebase as well as many new features, but is not yet ready for production use.
  
We need to provide some way to mass e-mail ACCEPTED authors only. Right now, the only option is to e-mail all authors, which becomes awkward about halfway through the management process of the conference (repeatedly needing to find and de-select the rejected authors).
+
While we do attempt to list all bugs tracked against a given release, quite often a bug report against one release will be ported to another (this is especially the case with 2.3.x bugfixes into the master branch; less so with 2.4 enhancements into the stable branch). This is also the case with some bugs tracked against other applications such as Open Journal Systems. You are encouraged to browse [http://pkp.sfu.ca/bugzilla our Bugzilla database] fully.  
  
When a user logs in with NO role, some kind of useful message should be displayed. For example:
+
==Milestone 2.3.x ('''Ad-hoc scheduling''')==
  
Would you like to:
+
As with [http://pkp.sfu.ca/wiki/index.php/OJS_Roadmap#Milestone_2.3.x_.28Ad-hoc_scheduling.29 OJS 2.3.x], OCS 2.3.x releases will be made as necessary to correct security issues or as sufficient minor fixes accumulate to make a release worthwhile.
  
[] Submit a proposal
+
==Milestone 2.4 ('''Not yet scheduled''')==
  
[] Register as a conference reviewer
+
PKP currently intends to consider release plans for OCS 2.4 from the master branch after the same has been completed for OJS 2.4. See [http://pkp.sfu.ca/wiki/index.php/OJS_Roadmap#Milestone_2.4_.28Q3_2012.29 OJS Milestone 2.4] for details. It is possible that PKP will opt to jump directly to considering OCS 3.0, described below.
  
[] Register to attend the conference
+
==Milestone 3.0 ('''Not yet scheduled''')==
  
This would help cut down on the many questions around this issue.
+
OJS 3.0, described [http://pkp.sfu.ca/wiki/index.php/OJS_Roadmap#Milestone_3.0_.28Not_yet_scheduled.29 here], will reconcile the departure in coding style pioneered by OMP by bringing OJS back into line, incorporating new UI tools and back-end structures. Broadly speaking this will be a priority for OCS as well, though timelines and plans for OCS are currently less defined. Much of this work will attempt to blur the distinctions between the different applications, further decreasing the amount of distinct code per application and introducing greater flexibility in workflow within each application.
  
Ability for the Director to rapidly assign papers to reviewers. For example, from the list of papers, make it possible to check off a group of papers and press an "Assign to Reviewer" option, which would pull up a list of Reviewers. Select one, hit Go and that would be it.
+
* See [http://pkp.sfu.ca/node/1600 Modularization of PKP Systems] for details on the proposed modularization of PKP applications.
 
+
Incomplete submissions should not go to the "unassigned" queue.
+
 
+
Ability to export abstracts, user data, etc. into a tab delimited and/or XML format for manipulation outside of OCS.
+
 
+
On the conference timeline, it is possible to close author registrations while submissions are still open. That should remain possible, but some kind of warning prompt would be ideal: "Do you really want to close author registration before the submissions are closed? Y/N".
+
 
+
Add scheduler
+
 
+
Add a "sent mail" email log for the CM
+
 
+
Support for panel submissions
+
 
+
Export list of unpaid registrants.
+
 
+
Add a warning on the final stage of the submission process indicating that by clicking on the button the submission will be complete.
+
 
+
Allow authors to re-submit (if directed by the Director to do so) after submission deadline has passed.
+
 
+
Make Blind Reviews optional, allowing Conference Managers to decide whether or not to include author information in the Submission Metadata, visible to the Reviewer.
+
 
+
Add support for full bilingualism - interface and content
+
 
+
When a registrant pays, have the system generate an email receipt.
+
 
+
Add flexibility to include multiple options for the type of presentation being proposed.
+
 
+
Add flexibility to include more personal information from authors (e.g., title/rank/status of the individual, such as professor, student, professional, etc.)
+
 
+
Ability to set up as a single, one-off conference site
+
 
+
Allow Conference Manager and Director role to be merged for a simpler option
+
 
+
Add some kind of a link back to the main site, in addition to the HOME button, which links back to the Conference home
+
 
+
Add a "review-lite" workflow option that simplifies/reduces the peer-review aspects and allows conference directors to focus on using
+
OCS as an access, scheduling, and general logistical tool for their conference.
+
 
+
Add a "collaborative review" workflow, where selected reviewers receive all submissions
+
 
+
Allow Directors/Track Directors to assign themselves ("Assign Self") as the Reviewer for a submission within Director interface
+
 
+
Reword "path" in setup (not an absolute path, but an abbreviation). Perhaps the abbreviation should just be used by default.
+
 
+
Add a budgeting module, which would allow conference managers to track conference expenses and generate cost reports.
+

Revision as of 16:58, 19 April 2012

Development Roadmap

You will find the OCS development roadmap for 2012 below. Please note that these dates are not fixed. OCS development is currently following two development branches: a 'stable' 2.3.x line which includes mainly bugfixes and will be an easy upgrade; and a 'master' 2.4 line, which includes large-scale changes in the underlying codebase as well as many new features, but is not yet ready for production use.

While we do attempt to list all bugs tracked against a given release, quite often a bug report against one release will be ported to another (this is especially the case with 2.3.x bugfixes into the master branch; less so with 2.4 enhancements into the stable branch). This is also the case with some bugs tracked against other applications such as Open Journal Systems. You are encouraged to browse our Bugzilla database fully.

Milestone 2.3.x (Ad-hoc scheduling)

As with OJS 2.3.x, OCS 2.3.x releases will be made as necessary to correct security issues or as sufficient minor fixes accumulate to make a release worthwhile.

Milestone 2.4 (Not yet scheduled)

PKP currently intends to consider release plans for OCS 2.4 from the master branch after the same has been completed for OJS 2.4. See OJS Milestone 2.4 for details. It is possible that PKP will opt to jump directly to considering OCS 3.0, described below.

Milestone 3.0 (Not yet scheduled)

OJS 3.0, described here, will reconcile the departure in coding style pioneered by OMP by bringing OJS back into line, incorporating new UI tools and back-end structures. Broadly speaking this will be a priority for OCS as well, though timelines and plans for OCS are currently less defined. Much of this work will attempt to blur the distinctions between the different applications, further decreasing the amount of distinct code per application and introducing greater flexibility in workflow within each application.