[Framework-Team] PLIP numbering scheme in PHC on plone.org and PLIPs in Trac

[Graham Perrin]

On 23 Dec 2008, at 12:55, Matthew Wilkes wrote:

> PLIPs have their own numbering and are currently stored exclusively  
> on plone.org.

On 23 Dec 2008, at 13:01, Matthew wrote:

> the same or similar workflow to what we currently have

To what extent does the plone.org (PHC) tradition, with or without its  
numbering scheme, help the workflow of the FWT and others involved in  
PLIPS?

 From the outside looking in I see plenty of evidence, over an  
extended period, of:

a) most activity being *very disconnected* from the traditional PLIP

b) PLIPs *not gaining updates* at appropriate times

c) roadmap views and other views being *far from true* reflections of  
the roadmap.

There is passionate, sometimes heated debate about maintaining and  
increasing developer interest in Plone.

IMHO it's of great importance to have a well expressed roadmap and in  
recent months the roadmap view has not been reliable.

(I'm not criticising any individual or group for failing to maintain  
the links between traditional PLIPs pages and other elements of the  
information architecture; I'm encouraging the group to recognise that  
some things simply don't happen :)

> I'm not sure what advantages managing them in trac would have  
> considering we'd have to migrate old plips or link seperately and  
> reconsider numbering.

Numbering is handy, human-friendly, but AFAICT *never* a consideration  
when voting.

> I'm not sure what I think of this, I think our current system works,  
> but I'd not be adverse to moving to trac if we had a smooth  
> migration plan.

Need not be complicated.

At its simplest: a PLIP in Trac does nothing more than refer to the  
original PLIP.

Best,
Graham