[Framework-Team] Expressing *now* at Trac the routines relating to Plone improvement proposals; minimising noise

Graham Perrin G.J.Perrin at bton.ac.uk
Thu Dec 25 10:17:40 UTC 2008


On 24 Dec 2008, at 23:28, Alexander Limi wrote:

> Migration plan is: Everything in 3.x stays the way it has been (at  
> least for now), for 4.0 — and possibly later releases in the 3.x  
> series — we put PLIPs in Trac.


On 23 Dec 2008, at 22:52, Ross Patterson wrote:

> I would prefer that mail traffic to go through the FWT list.
>
> We could simply set a policy and say that all PLIPs should have the  
> FWT list address added to their CC.  Would anyone else find this  
> valuable? Would it cause any problems?  Whaddya think?


===========
Suggestions
===========


1. At <http://dev.plone.org/plone/> explain now or ASAP the three  
types of ticket:

* Bug
* Feature request
* Plone improvement proposal


2. If it's not too late, within the Type menu in Trac:

* use the expression 'Plone improvement proposal' in lieu of PLIP.

Rationale:

* tickets found in Trac should be _immediately_ friendly to newcomers,  
to potential developers

* as you might be frustrated to find a ticket type 'DQZ' in another  
organisation's Trac, so we should assume that visitors may be  
frustrated by the need to refer to a glossary for something as  
fundamental as: type of ticket ;)


3. At <http://dev.plone.org/plone/> alongside the explanations, offer  
*direction* concerning discussion of Plone improvement proposals.

Example: will the venues for discussion change, according to whether  
the proposal is draft, submitted, accepted, completed?

(I suspect that there *will* be different, context-sensitive venues. I  
should prefer things to be logical, co-ordinated, with as little  
jumping around as possible. IF the logic is well expressed from the  
outset AND IF that expression is in the right place(s), then noise  
should be minimal.)


4. Noise: early attention to point (3) should help to minimise Trac- 
related noise.


5. On 24 Dec 2008, at 14:20, Martijn Pieters wrote:

> I don't quite see the need to have the FWT subscribed; too much  
> noise for me, the RSS feed gives me enough info. A separate list  
> would be a better idea.

Defocusing from Framework Team, PLIPs and PLone: I don't like the idea  
of separate lists unless they are both:

a) _extremely_ well defined

and

b) _future proof_ in terms of IA.

My gut feeling (echoing Limi, but without knowing what's in the engine  
of Tracs for Plone) is that:

* you should allow what's already provided, to work for you with least  
possible complications, fewest separations, fewest duplications.

Another list is IMHO a slippery slope to failed/missing communication  
at some point in the distant future.

OT, a critical comparison: in the openoffice.org domains they have  
recently created a new user interface-related list that is excluded  
from the user interface domain. This particular user interface list is  
in the user experience domain which is apparently separated from all  
user interface discussions. The lists' subscribers seem to be sailing  
through this IA muddle, oblivious to the potential to confuse  
newcomers to the lists/domains!

Bottom line: in the spirit of transparency, and to encourage something  
as potentially complex as Python/Zope/Plone to be as welcoming as  
possible to potential new developers, make the _improvement process_  
as close as possible to faultless.

Best,
Graham



More information about the Framework-Team mailing list