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

Graham Perrin G.J.Perrin at bton.ac.uk
Thu Feb 14 11:46:22 UTC 2008

I wrote:

> cringe at the idea of project management software

> CalDAV ... blah blah

On 7 Feb 2008, at 08:56, Martin Aspeli wrote:

> I fear that doing project management on a per-PLIP basis adds more  
> overhead than value, at least if people don't actually "live" the  
> project management software and take the deadlines seriously.

On 7 Feb 2008, at 15:26, Christian Scholz wrote:

> I also did a Calendar with Google Calendar:
> http://mrtopf.de/blog/plone/the-plone-release-calendar/
> I am also playing around with Yahoo Pipes to create some filters  
> etc. It would definitely be good to have a synchronized calendar to  
> see what deadline (relevant to you) is coming up next. For me it  
> would be the date when the PLIPs should be ready, when  
> implementation and when the release is supposed to be released.
> And of course this calendar should be in somebody's responsibility  
> (preferably somebody from the framework team or the release manager).

On 8 Feb 2008, at 06:30, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> I am not convinced we need more process: complex processes do not  
> work in a project like Plone.

+1 (plus)
to simplicity

-1 (minus)
to complexity
to project management software
to any individual(s) shouldering responsibilities that become  
excessive or undesirable.

I saw <http://plone.org/development/teams/framework/framework-team>  
<http://plone.org/development/teams/framework/faq>, but intentionally  
took little notice of either one before floating ideas. As the  
Strategic Planning Summit was approaching, I temporarily set aside  
most stated procedures/roles.

FWIW my own plans for CalDAV in the work environment (co-location of  
research groups from two universities with dissimilar infrastructures  
for calendaring, bookings etc.) are _totally_ focused on:

  * reducing processes and complexity
  * easing, sometimes sharing responsibilities.

It's coincidental that CalDAV lends itself to (for example) 'Project  
X' software and hopefully such coincidences can be pleasant.

Whether things progress according to plan, only time will tell -- Mac  
OS X Server, iCal Server etc. to be installed some time soon, ideally  
configured to augment LDAP/AD infrastructures of the two  
universities, etc. -- wish me luck!

-- Reducing complexity/processes, easing responsibilities: high  
-- use of Project X by my colleagues: unlikely (we don't 'live' such  
things) but the options are there.


On 7 Feb 2008, at 16:32, Martin Aspeli wrote:

> The outside world is not going to look kindly on a release that is  
> "on time" to a deadline we arbitrarily set but which is majorly  
> buggy, completely underwhelming feature-wise or shoddily integrated.


I'm not aware of anyone in the outside world pleading for adherence  
to any schedule, past or present.

On 8 Feb 2008, at 06:30, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> Christian Scholz wrote:

>> I meant more that we should define (and document) the timespans  
>> between releases are happening so everybody knows when the next  
>> chance and deadline is. For 3.1 I know now, for the next releases  
>> I don't.
> We can't do that until a single release becomes more predictable.  
> The 3.0.x releases have been very predictable (every month around  
> the 10th) except for 3.0 where the summit complicated things. 3.0  
> slipped for various reasons, and 3.1 which was completely designed  
> to be simpler and more predictable is already slipping by two  
> weeks. As long as that happens it is impossible to set useful  
> schedules for releases beyond the upcoming release.

High quality improvements to Plone, and actions from (for example)  
the Summit, are to me far more satisfying than a fixed schedule for  


More information about the Framework-Team mailing list