Things from Mozillazine:
1) UI polish.
<sigh> Where to start? We need to clearly define who the buck stops with
on the UI. Is it Ben Goodger? We need to get specs for everything, and get
them agreed. This means people committing to writing them, and Netscape
publishing its specs for debate. We need to put together a UI hit team
with a pet responsive UI super-reviewer so we can get good turn-around on
UI bugs and bash through all the little annoying ones. We need to
publicise the fact that Brendan rs=ed all text-string-only changes, and
try and get some more cleanup-type changes (comments only?) into that
category.
It's difficult to define hard 1.0 criteria for the UI. "All specs in
<list> implemented"?
2) Security.
I totally missed this, and that was bad. I think we can be uncompromising
here: "Mozilla 1.0 should have no known remote security holes at the time
of release, a 'remote security hole' being a thing defined by the group
which currently looks at security holes in Mozilla, with the buck probably
stopping with mstoltz."
3) Patches.
Someone has made the point that there are a lot of patches rotting in
Bugzilla, and this is no way to treat our contributors. I suggest that
"There should be no unevaluated patches in Bugzilla older than X days at
the time of release" would force module owners to triage the patches they
had. But this is something we need to sort out regardless, so maybe it's
not worth making a criteria. Hmm.
4) End-User Documentation
This is obviously desireable. Do we make it a 1.0 criteria? How much is
sufficient? Is anyone stepping up to the plate to write a Mozilla manual?
(In XHTML with funky stuff, naturally.)
Gerv
