Grouper Users - Open Discussion List

[Blair X Christensen <>]

I have plenty of regrets.

1. IIRC uchicago added course groups to Grouper with the idea being that if 
they were available people would use them.  They didn't, for the most part.  
I would definitely recommend having some demand/actual use cases before 
proceeding.

2. Related: attempting to map the full complexity of classes to Grouper 
(instructors, TAs, multiple sections, cross listings, lab sections, 
discussion sections, auditors, etc) can be challenging.  Made worse if you 
are supporting all of that complexity and no one is really using it.

3. Have a plan for how you intend to handle old classes, whether deleting, 
archiving or whatever.

In an ideal world I still think these groups could be useful but the complex 
model we created can be a turn off for individuals. In addition, most people 
who are really interested in making significant use of this data end up going 
straight to the source and get the precise data that they are interested in 
direct from the student system itself.  I don't blame them.

blair @ uchicago


> On Jul 7, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Bill Thompson <> wrote:
> 
> Lafayette is working on getting our course rosters into Grouper. If you’ve 
> already done this and have advice/regrets/pointers on things like naming 
> convention, grouper privilege management, exception handling, course roster 
> group lifecycle, etc please let me know.  We are pulling these in as 
> reference groups per the Grouper Deployment Guide. Thanks!
> 
> Best,
> Bill
>