[Framework-Team] Re: Updated PLIP review deadline
az at zitc.de
Fri Feb 15 22:50:41 UTC 2008
On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> I still don't think this makes any sense.
since you've sent that mail to: me and i'm also the spokesperson of
the framework team, i'll try to respond to a few bits. i don't really
want to repeat everything i've said before, though, except for one
point: i've merely _assumed_ the schedule would be shifted by two
weeks, i.e. the time the bundle reviews were late (or, are going to
that "less than one week" time span between the end of the reviews and
the tagging of the first alpha has been like this from the start, and
ultimately people seemed fine with it. i know there's also been a
discussion back then, and i do agree with you that it leaves only very
little time for you (PLIP authors), but blaming the framework team for
this doesn't seem right imo. the team surely is to blame for other
things, but it didn't set or change the schedule, except for
prolonging the review period, of course.
> If you want to have
> everything *merged* by Friday the 22nd, then you (Wichert) will have
> to start doing those merges way before then.
this is just a minor detail (and not to suggest there is enough time),
but i'd like to add that the code was supposed to be tagged next
friday, and the actual release was planned for monday. so the merging
wouldn't have to take place before then. i've translated "pre-release
tagged" into "alpha freeze" when putting up the calendar, which might
be misleading. sorry about that.
> For the record, no-one's told me anything about my five
> bundles.There's been no centralised, proper communication with PLIP
> authors. Unless they are vigilant and watch Subversion and Trac for
> notes the trickle in at a random intervals, they are unlikely to have
> realised if they need to react.
well, i guess the attempt to centralise things using trac tickets was
maybe not such a good idea after all. the idea was in fact to make it
easier for authors to keep track of things, but that was assuming
everybody had filled in their email address to receive trac
notifications (or was using rss), of course. i had tried to make sure
all authors were cc'ed on the tickets, which is likely to be the
reason why they were cc'ed way too little on the mails sent to the
list. so yes, you're right about a lack of direct communication with
the authors, and i apologize for being too ignorant about people like
you, who wouldn't want to receive tons of trac mails.
> The Framework Team needs to bear some responsibility for the quality
> of the release, and that includes setting realistic expectations of
> PLIP authors. It also includes giving clear communication about what
> those expecations are, and taking into account that people will be
> doing this work in their spare time, with other time pressures.
i agree, except that i didn't think this also includes changing the
schedule. i was under the impression his was the job of the release
manager, but maybe there's been some misunderstanding here.
> For example, if you'd met you original deadline, I would've had more
> time, since that deadline was set at a more advantageous date. Right
> now, I'm exhausted and fed up.
i'm sorry about that, but i guess taking all author's personal
schedules into account isn't really possible either. like i said, the
time span between reviews and tagging is still the same, and the
original schedule might also have worked worse (or better) for some of
you. btw, i'm not particularly happy about the delay and the amount
of additional work it creates...
> It leaves a really bad taste in my mouth that we have these
> discussions at nearly every single deadline we set.
same here, except i wasn't involved in as many as you, of course. but
may i point out that i think the problem in this particular case was
probably that the initial discussion about the timeline imo never
really reached a consensus? so, with the ambitious timeline set, it
was more or less bound to resurface again, no? not to complain,
though, just another thing we should try to do better next time...
> What if I'm busy
> this Sunday - potentially the *one* non-work day you give authors to
> react to the final reviews? It's the first weekend since the PSPS. The
> deadline recently slipped with lacklustre communication as to why,
> when the new deadline was, whether it was being adhered to and what
> would happen next. You are expecting PLIP implementers to be just
> sitting by ready to jump when you manage to get the reviews done.
> That's in no way fair.
yes, our deadline slipped and communication bad, to say the least, but
again, i don't think this really changed things for the PLIP authors.
the problem lies in the original schedule, and the team didn't set
that. however, this is not to blame wichert, though. we were all
aiming for a very short cycle, and i think he just tried to make it as
short as possible. as it seems we might not have given it enough
thought, but like godefroid said, it's okay to fail — the important
bit is to take in into account next time...
that said, i'd like to state that i'd be in favour of shifting the
alpha (and everything else) another week to allow more time to respond
and fix things. so i hanno, if i may say so — he's sitting next to me
(sound asleep atm :)), but we've been discussing the schedule and the
release process in general for most of yesterday's afternoon.
> I am pretty sure I'm not
> the only one who hasn't been planning my life around a slipped review
no, you're certainly not.
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...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Framework-Team