On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
So I think it makes a lot of sense to find an alternate way to formalize the inclusion of UI concerns into the review process. As such I'm +1 onformalizing the 'UI impact component' part of the PLIP process.
+1, i completely agree with ross here.also, and quite frankly, i don't really see the problem: we talked about changing the fwt process to allow externals reviewers, and we agreed (iirc). we also talked about extending the PLIP process to consider and put more emphasize on UI and documentation issues. we also agreed here. putting these two together makes it not necessary for an explicit UI experts to be part of the fwt anymore. so while i agree that the new team is more technically oriented the specific individual skillsets involved don't really matter that much. imho, it's primarily more about dedication (or should we say a passing for plone? :)) and the will to put in enough time and energy. of course, technical skills will greatly help when reviewing code — and i expect there will be quite a lot of it to review — but that's another story...
anyhow, i think the only thing that's missing is that we go ahead and decided on the new processes and document them. once the PLIP process is refined UI issues (to stick with the original critique) must be considered, and if the necessary skills are not sufficient amongst the team, well, then some external reviewers need to be found to do the job... the same might be true for technical and other issues as well.
cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.1.7 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
