[Framework-Team] Re: Re: Release roadmap for 3.0

[Martin Aspeli]

On Thu, 11 May 2006 16:11:30 +0100, whit  
<d.w.morriss at gmail.com> wrote:

> "But in my opinion, if it's November or December instead of October
> that's necessary to make this happen, that's a pretty small price to pay
> for a release that we can market as a great step forward, not just
> another trickle. "
>
> I appreciate the enthusiasm, but 2 points:
>
> 1. code is ready when it is ready.  for projections made now, it is
> wiser to leave things that don't have bundles out of the equation.
> Better to have interesting releases across the 3.0 series.

I think that this vision of the roadmap and the future is one perspective  
- and it's a slightly different one from my own. In a way, you're proving  
my point, because if this is the underpinning assumption you're making as  
a (former) framework team member, then that has an effect on what you vote  
in or out.

If the consensus is that we need a big, flashy, marketable release, it  
changes perceptions compared to a scenario where we want a slow and steady  
release. Since the framework team and the release manager are the  
custodians of that decision, this thinking (one way or the other) will  
profoundly affect how Plone looks the next time we roll a release. And if  
that is the case, then why are we not more openly engaging in *that*  
debate earlier on.

> 2. worrying about marketting and the "meaning" of release number imho
> has had a negative impact on discussion and effective planning in the
> past.  two things to remember in this regard::
>
> - we have more features that have been released than have been marketed
> or made truly usable to the market we claim to be aiming at.  Therefore,
> needing to make the 3.0 release "marketable" is a non-starter to me (we
> need to get people to market).  Having one or two important features to
> focus on per release is more important than a ton of features.

At least it is to you (and I'd agree with you, mostly, although I fear one  
or two new features every 6-8 months is too slow a pace). But we need to  
be cognizant also that when Plone-the-product hits 3.0, there should be  
excitement. There should be reviews. There should be marketing. And we  
can't have that if the innovations that people see are minor. To the  
developers and integrators, this possibly doesn't make much difference,  
except it's through this kind of ooomphf that we get new users, and  
ultimately new business.

> - the meaning of a release is a marketing question.  if marketing says
> "we need SoC for publicity reasons", then it makes sense to wait. but
> otherwhise, this should just be a discussion of technical merit and
> preparedness.  the framework team should not be effected by the
> marketing vacuum.

How can they not be? I mean, if their role is to vote things in our out,  
naturally they will (and I'd argue should) be influenced by what we as a  
community want the release to look like. Do we want a slow-and-steady  
release to stabilise the framework (which is what I was under the  
impression that the .5 releases were for), well then we'll value  
stabilising improvements over new-UI improvements, possibly even rejecting  
some new UI concepts because we want to give users and third party  
developers the time to adjust to the innovations made in the previous  
version. Do we want to make those kinds of innovations once again, to stay  
ahead of the curve and make Plone seem like it's still the best CMS out  
there (which is what I thought the .0 releases were about)? Well then we  
may take a few more risks at the expense of making real progress in what  
Plone-the-product can do.

Martin

-- 
"You can just adapt yourself out of it..." // Archipelago sprint 26/04/2006