[Framework-Team] Re: Updated PLIP review deadline

Andreas Zeidler 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.

hi martin,

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  
be, hopefully...).

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
> deadline.

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...
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/20080215/8e2c1dd4/attachment.sig>

More information about the Framework-Team mailing list