[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List

Ross Patterson me at rpatterson.net
Thu Dec 18 15:37:10 UTC 2008

Ross Patterson <me at rpatterson.net> writes:

> Tom Lazar <lists at tomster.org> writes:
>> On 18.12.2008, at 11:48, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>> On 12/18/08 11:43 AM, Tom Lazar wrote:
>>>>> and therefore should be reflected in the membership of the
>>>>> group which makes decisions based on those factors.
>>>> i think that conclusion is the only part where we disagree. can we
>>>> agree at least on that? ;-)
>>> Not without a way to guarantee that user interface will be a full
>>> part of the process, which incudes the guarantee that everything
>>> will go through a proper user interface review done by people with
>>> the right skillset, and can be rejected even if just the user
>>> interface is not up to par.
> ...
>> but perhaps we could make the 'UI impact component' a formal part of
>> the evaluation of a PLIP, i.e. add it as a formal part of the
>> structure of a PLIP (in addition to the current ones such as
>> Deliverables, Participants etc.)
>> that way the issue could never be missed (i imagine that many UI flaws
>> come into existence because technical people didn't realize there
>> *was* a UI perspective to the given issue). Also, it would make it
>> easy to get an overview of the UI impact of all of the submitted PLIPs
>> by simply focussing on those parts of the PLIPs.
>> anybody care to add their $0.02?
> It seems clear that everyone agrees that UI concerns need to be included
> in the review process.  There doesn't seem to be agreement on retracting
> the FWT selection.  For my money, I think any sort of retraction or
> re-openning of the process would be a mistake.
> I also think that simply saying "Don't worry, we'll consider UI" could
> be inadequate to ensure UI is considered sufficiently.  It is most
> certainly inadequate to redress the concerns of those who raise the
> complaint and agree with it.
> So I think it makes a lot of sense to find an alternate way to formalize
> the inclusion of UI concerns into the review process.  As such I'm +1 on
> formalizing the 'UI impact component' part of the PLIP process.  More
> specifically I think we should require that every PLIP have a UI expert
> weigh in on the estimation of UI considerations and if a PLIP has UI
> considerations then we should require that a UI expert fully reviews
> those UI impacts.

Oh, BTW, I'm +10 for doing the same for Documentation.


More information about the Framework-Team mailing list