[Framework-Team] Review process: suggestions, and an offer

[Graham Perrin]

On 6 Feb 2008, at 20:43, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> We will need to find a method to prevent this from happening again  
> for Plone 3.2.

Excuse me chipping in, as an interested observer. Some suggestions,  
and an offer...

=========================
Suggested order of things
=========================

Assuming that Plone 3.2 will be succeeded by 3.3:

1) draft a PLIP

2) state the realistic date when the PLIP will be ready for review  
(ideally, avoiding a last minute schedule)

3) potential reviewers consider timelines for versions 3.2 and for  
3.3, and the date promised

4) willing reviewers associate themselves with both (i) the PLIP and  
(ii) version 3.2 or 3.3 of Plone

5) each reviewer states the realistic date when they expect to  
complete their review (again, avoiding a last minute schedule)

6) voters consider four things: the PLIP, the Plone version timeline 
(s), the review team for the PLIP, and the reviewer's schedule

7) vote

8) the PLIP is (a) accepted for 3.2, or (b) deferred for later  
consideration (3.3 and beyond), or (c) rejected.

The word 'submit' appears nowhere above, slot that in wherever it's  
most appropriate.

Critically:

  * the reviewing process, which can't be done without reviewers, is  
clearer _before_ votes are cast.

A deferral need not reflect upon the value of a PLIP; review and  
other factors are considered.

Re flexibility of timeline etc. (the KSS discussion was interesting),  
I'll step nearly all the way back, with just one comment:

  * a most thorough (least rushed) review will minimise the risk of a  
change or addition to Plone adversely affecting an add-on product.

(I think of <http://dev.plone.org/plone/changeset/18891> - that  
wasn't PLIP-related, but it does highlight the value of widespread/ 
thorough testing.)


=====
Offer
=====

I normally cringe at the idea of project management software (!)  
especially in relation to software development, but a simple timeline  
view of things might help you at the voting stage and beyond.

Visualise, in iCal (or Outlook 2007 or Mulberry or Mozilla Sunbird/ 
Lightning or whatever):

|---- PLIP draft
|--------- PLIP submission
|-------------- PLIP review
|------------------- schedule of named reviewer #1
|---------------------------- schedule of named reviewer #2
|---------------------------------------- Plone 3.2 release

or something like that; you make your own choices re iCalendar  
subscriptions

  * in an ideal world, everything above the 'Plone 3.2 release' line  
should be well towards the left hand side, and voting will be easy

  * in the real world (work, moving, life in general) some PLIP- 
related lines will lean to the right, in which case voting may be  
more circumspect.

I'm about to purchase Project X software, here are screen shots of  
its 'web app':
<http://www.projectx.com/Larger%20Image%20Pages/Enterhours.html>
<http://www.projectx.com/Larger%20Image%20Pages/Reviewsubmit.html>

That alone isn't ground breaking, but as Project X is now CalDAV- 
enabled it should be possible (easy?) to gain iCalendar views of things.

Within three, maybe four weeks I should have at my disposal a CalDAV  
server (Apple iCal Server in Mac OS X Server 10.5) ...

The offer
---------

Allow use of our CalDAV server by people involved with PLIPs

* I suppose that equates to, accounts for the framework team, plus  
accounts for PLIP submitters and reviewers who are not on 'the team'.

I can't _promise_ that -- I should clear it with management where I  
work -- but I don't imagine any objection.

<http://centrim.mis.brighton.ac.uk/more/h/faq/icalendar> for a rough  
list of iCalendar-savvy software.

Best regards

Graham Perrin, Project/Media Development Officer
CENTRIM - the Centre for Research in Innovation Management
<http://www.brighton.ac.uk/centrim/people/a-z/gjp4>
+44-1273-877922