[Framework-Team] Re: Updated PLIP review deadline

Andreas Zeidler az at zitc.de
Thu Feb 14 06:19:16 UTC 2008


On Feb 7, 2008, at 1:01 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Once you post your reviews (here?) what happens? How does the team  
> arrive at a final yes/no vote? How long does that take?

hmm, i can't decide on these, of course, but i'd still like to try and  
get at least two reviews per PLIP.  in case the reviews don't reveal  
major issues or otherwise warrant further discussion, i think that  
should do.  every member of the team should read all of the submitted  
review notes and formally vote on the inclusion of the PLIP in  
question, though.  with the deadline on the 16th and a sunday  
following that i reckon it should be easy enough for everyone to cast  
their votes by monday.  in case not, could you please tell us asap?

otherwise we should have a complete set of votes by monday night, at  
which point i'll post the verdict or rather the recommendations of the  
framework team.  that should leave enough time for merging and last- 
minute polishing before the alpha freeze, which will presumably be on  
february 22nd now (assuming we're gonna shift the whole schedule by  
two weeks).

does that sound alright with everyone?

> For 3.0, each reviewer posted a thread here with the necessary  
> comments, including good points, bad points and recommendations.

i guess that's what the trac tickets were created for — the reviewers  
are supposed to update those with links to their notes, and i've cc'ed  
the authors when creating them.  hmm, i guess that's assuming everyone  
had put their email address into their trac settings, but i'll make  
sure to cc everyone again when sending out the results on monday.

> We then reported back to the author (usually by just CC'ing them on  
> the framework team list threads) and they were told either that it  
> was rejected, or to make the necessary changes (if any) and prepare  
> for merge. Wichert took the final decision on whether to merge or not.

that makes sense, of course, and imho we should keep it like that.

> As a learning point, we (I) should have written down our process  
> properly and handed it over better.

i suppose that would have helped a bit here and there, but most of the  
problems we were seeing were due to lack of time anyway.

> I apologise for not doing this, relying on doing it verbally and  
> letting you guys (especially Andreas) come up with your own take  
> without too much guidance.

no biggie — the important bit was to identify this during the summit,  
which will hopefully make sure things work better next time.

cheers,


andi

ps: sorry for answering so late, btw.

--
zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info at zitc.de
friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779
pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/
plone 3.0.5 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/plone-framework-team/attachments/20080213/7ac35fba/attachment.sig>


More information about the Framework-Team mailing list