[Framework-Team] Re: Release roadmap for 3.0

[Rob Miller]

Martin Aspeli wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 01:21:21 +0100, Rob Miller 
> <ra at burningman.com> wrote:
> 
>> whoa, hold on just a minute here.  NOBODY, until you, right now, has 
>> ever said
>> that this is within the scope of the framework team.  the framework team
>> exists for one reason, and that is to vet the proposals based on their
>> technical merit.  i am not aware of any "importance that the community 
>> has
>> bestowed" on this team, and frankly i find this post rather offensive.
> 
> Okay, hold on ... I never meant to offend anyone, nor to take any 
> responsibility that wasn't mine or ours. I probably phrased it that way, 
> so I'm sorry.

it's okay.. i've cooled off.  i'm sorry for flying off the handle.

> What I meant is, I think people *outside* the team will have certain 
> expectations. You tell them that we vote what goes in or out. Do you not 
> think that will affect their decision to work on something? I know it 
> did for me when I was on the other side of the fence.
> 
>> if you want to speak for yourself, you can say whatever the hell you 
>> want.
>> but you were given the role of the mouthpiece of the framework team, 
>> and while
>> acting out the responsibilities of that role i would very much 
>> appreciate it
>> if you would stay within the bounds of that role.
> 
> You're right, I probably made it sound all wrong, so I'm sorry about 
> that. I certainly wouldn't say anything like this "in public", i.e. 
> outside this list.
> 
>> nobody is expecting limi to do it.and nobody is saying that you 
>> shouldn't.
>> but frankly i am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with you suddenly making broad
>> unilateral statements on what the purpose of this body is, what role 
>> we should
>> be playing, etc.
> 
> Sorry, again, that wasn't my intention. But I think we need to be 
> cognizant of the fact that we don't live in isolation. If a potential 
> contributor wants to spend his time on something, the blessing, 
> officially or unofficially, of someone who will utlimately be making the 
> decision on whether it's accepted or not will be pretty important to 
> him. You could spend months working on a reviewable bundle, wouldn't you 
> want to guage the perceptions of the people who vote it in? Conversely, 
> if there is no-one to ask, the uncertainty of not knowing whether this 
> is even a good idea will be a pretty big turn-off.

that's fine.  we should definitely encourage people who are possibly facing
this situation to start discussions on the plone-devel list, which we all
follow, so that everyone who might have a stake can speak up.  there's nothing
wrong with asking around if something is a good idea before going through the
formal PLIP and review bundle process.

>>> Whether it's wearing the framework team hat or not at any given point 
>>> in time is moot.
>>
>> no, it's not.
> 
> It isn't? Our names are well-known, and so is our task - to vote PLIP 
> bundles in or out of a release (with the release manager having the 
> final say). Do you not think people will gauge our reactions when we 
> participate in the community outside this list?

this is the part i feel most strongly about.  i think that it is very
important that everyone, especially you in the spokesperson role, make it
quite clear when they're speaking as a representative of the framework team,
as distinct from the general case of just speaking for themself.  of course,
the opinion that a framework team member, even speaking as himself, has about
the value of a particular effort, which someone hopes to get into a specific
release, is going to be important.

the framework team was created with a very specific and limited role,
deliberately.  that role is to assess the technological impact of the
proposals that are presented.  there IS a need for the cheerleading, the
cat-herding, the discussion-driving, the hand-holding, the (gentle)
nay-saying, etc.  but that's not what the people who are on this team were
asked to do.  if they want to, taking OFF their hats as members of the team,
then great... i'm 110% in support of that.

>> fine, so make those posts, and encourage others to do so.  but as 
>> someone who
>> is intimately involved with the Plone development and release process, 
>> i will
>> be seriously pissed if you start flying off the handle under the 
>> auspices of
>> an "official" voice that nobody other than yourself has seen fit to 
>> bless you
>> with.  the framework team is NOT a marketing team, and your concerns 
>> are NOT
>> universal to the folks who make this happen.
> 
> Totally - sorry again, that wasn't my intention. I have no intention of 
> unilaterally doing anything whatsoever.
> 
> I think it's sensible, however, to discuss the role (official *and* 
> realistic) of the team *on this list*. What I voiced was something up 
> for discussion, and a commentary on the way I see people react on the 
> lists, on IRC and at the sprints. Perhaps more than anything, it was a 
> commentary on the "buck-stops-with-limi" (when it comes to features and 
> UI-facing things at least ... which is the focus of the 3.0 release) 
> culture which on one hand is great and on the other hand is dangerous. 
> If no-one feels responsibility for shepherding people along, then I fear 
> our pace slows too much.

that may be.  i think you do a great job of communicating what you think is
important to the community, and taking a strong role in shepherding people
along.  i strongly encourage you to keep on doing this, and would even support
the existence of some structure around that.  but, IMNSHO, it's not the
framework team.

> I think the framework team is too much tied to the six-month release 
> cycle for that to be their primary target; perhaps it's the role of the 
> release manager, perhaps we need no-one to do it at all, and people just 
> naturally align themselves with where the community is going. But I 
> think that it's naive to assume that, realistically, socially we who 
> have been given any kind of official title at all (the framework team, 
> the release manager, the foundation executive) will have no impact 
> whatsoever on where people see Plone going, where they're willing to put 
> the hours in, and what they are support ideologically.

of course it's naive.  but the framework team is a revolving door.  anyone
who's following what's going on in the plone community well enough to know who
the members of the framework team are is probably also going to be aware who
most of the respected members of our community are.  what we need is for
discussion of things to be happening on plone-devel among ALL of these people,
so the general sense of where we want to head (and where we don't) is plain to
everybody, before folks are faced with the formality of the PLIP-bundle
process.  and, yes, it would be nice to have someone driving that discussion.

> And if we *do* have such a role, whether given to us officially or not, 
> I think it's important that we are clear in communicating what this 
> means - inwardly *and* outwardly, to avoid precisely the kind of 
> misunderstanding that you are (rightly) afraid of.
> 
>>> We have a responsibility to communicate outwardly as well as among 
>>> ourselves, because we are given the task of making real decisions 
>>> that will affect Plone profoundly at the turn of each release. At 
>>> least I think we should have. :)
>>
>> yes, we do.  and i think that the first and biggest thing that we 
>> should be
>> communicating on is what, exactly, this team is, and what, exactly, it 
>> is not.
> 
> I couldn't agree more.
> 
>> and i'm going to propose that this problem is exacerbated, in part, by 
>> the
>> authoritative demeanor with which you have a tendency to frame your 
>> opinions.
> 
> Point well taken. I have a tendency to write in this way, as I'm sure 
> you agree. I will try even harder to stop myself from sounding too 
> "official" - if anything, it is a character flaw. I've certainly tried 
> to be very clear about my role whenever the topic comes up. If there is 
> a feeling that my style makes me unsuitable for the spokesperson role, I 
> am more than happy to cede it to someone else more suitable.

no, don't be silly.  i was definitely being harsher than i needed to be.  i'm
sorry.

ironically, however, this whole exchange is an example of how that can work.
i got upset because i interpreted your message as a definitive statement about
what the role of the framework team should be, rather than as one opening up a
discussion on that topic.

> I hope that clears some of it up.

it does.  so, for the record, i'm a strong +1 on there being some persons
taking on the role of driving discussion on the devel list about what should
and shouldn't land in the next release, and on who's gonna do what,
cheerleading, all that.  i'll definitely take part in such discussions, and
will provide support as i can.

and i'm a strong -1 on this being thought of as an official role of the
framework team.  in fact, i think that any overlap between whoever is on the
framework team and whoever is driving the discussions and managing the process
should be thought of as purely coincidental.

-r