[Framework-Team] Re: random thought: identify the components that lack owners
Tres Seaver wrote: It seems to me that not having continuity of architectural vision across releases, including the ability to remove broken / abandoned components, is a really dangerous place for Plone to be. Is this an actual or a hypothetical problem? I think there is architectural vision in Plone, but it tends to be established through a process of discourse and consensus building, more so than through one man's iron fist. I think the true test of this will come at the point when we have a deadlock over the direction that can't be resolved through consensus. I struggle to think of an example of where that's happened, though. [1] For what it's worth, part of the argument of my master's thesis was that this discourse-driven process of continual "structuration" and "re-structuration" of ideas makes Plone more resilient and ultimately more successful than projects that are either driven by a single dictator (since most people are fallible), a single parent company (ditto), or too small a community to foster the type of voices that are capable of driving this debate forward and lending authority to decisions. A case in point - Paul is concerned that no-one is able to rubber stamp a future of embracing WSGI and related technologies. Meanwhile, the rest of us are busy building that WSGI future. But before we can do that, we need to know if it works, and if we can get the bulk of the community to move in the same direction. If we installed a dictator or established a bureaucratic system (and I suspect we'd do either very badly), that still wouldn't make anybody do the work or write the documentation or actually make this happen. Open source is by its nature bottom-up innovation. Take away the creative chaos, and you have little left. That's not to say we shouldn't rip out a bunch of code. In fact, I'm going to lend my voice (and hopefully a little bit of authority) to that argument in two weeks' time. :-) Martin [1] Perhaps the KSS vs. Bling debate of yore came close -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: random thought: identify the components that lack owners
On Sep 26, 2008, at 8:05 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote: I'd be very reluctant to make the framework team into a general code leadership team, though. That's explicitly *not* what it has been designed for and the way it is elected and the people are recruited doesn't give them a lot of authority for this matter. It's also not what they signed up for. +1 This is too important to just be assigned as an additional duty to an existing entity. and another. cheers, andi -- zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779 pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/ plone 3.1.5.1 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
[Framework-Team] Re: random thought: identify the components that lack owners
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hanno Schlichting wrote: > Tres Seaver wrote: >> Hmm, as an outsider, the FWT's job (reviewing and accepting PLIPs) is to >> do what a single BFDL would do in a project would have one. > > It might seem so from a certain point of view. That's however not how it > has been intended and not quite what the current status is. > > Here's the current situation from my POV (German-style, as in: short and > not meant to offend anyone, even if it sounds like it): > > In the early days we had two BDFL. One for code, one for UI. The one for > code got busy growing his company and isn't involved in the core > development anymore. > > We move on some years, get a terrible experience with the 2.1 release > and we realize we need to do something. Folks sit down and create the > framework team. It is intended to be a barrier for inclusion of bad and > unfinished code into the core. What about such code, or abandoned code, which is already in the core, and which would therefore not be accepted today? > The intended process of how growing Plone should work since the 2.1 > release up until now is officially: > > - Someone writes a PLIP. > - The community at discusses and generates consensus on whether or not a > PLIP should be accepted and if it should be included in the core. > - The submitter writes the code needed and submits it to the framework > team for a particular release. > - The framework team decides about the technical merit of the > implementation and if the goals outlined in the PLIP are met. > - The release manager for a release is appointed by the foundation > board. He has a final say in rejecting or overruling the recommendation > made by the framework team. > > That's the official story so far. The framework team does not have a > mandate to decide about the general merit of a PLIP, but only on the > technical one. It is currently a peer-review team. It is only elected > for one release at a time and doesn't have any mandate to care about the > long-term roadmap of Plone. > > What we are missing indeed these days is a technical long-term roadmap > and an authoritative team to set it. I assumed from my outsider's viewpoint that the framework team had been given that responsibility. > Right now various core developers, including me, Martin and Wichert to > name a few of the most craziest contributers, push some parts into a > direction at times. I'm officially abusing the lack of an established > process for Plone SVN trunk to change it to my personal will right now. > That is easy in the short term but not a good idea in the mid or long term. > > I think we need to address this issue and have an official story for > "Who inherits the role of Alan". History of open source projects have > proven, that once a founder has stepped down from being a BDFL there is > no way to go back to having a dictator again, so we need a team. > > But maybe this only my personal view of the current situation? It seems to me that not having continuity of architectural vision across releases, including the ability to remove broken / abandoned components, is a really dangerous place for Plone to be. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design"http://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI3TJF+gerLs4ltQ4RAkmdAJ9nsT0Fpg13h5Jv01SKw3ootTtjGACfWrdp ClFtMpkplqO0fNtlrNnxLd8= =7CRh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: random thought: identify the components that lack owners
Hi Jon. Jon Stahl wrote: > However, there's really no definitive list of these that we can use to > recruit more talent. I've just given you Trac admin rights, so you can have a look at https://dev.plone.org/plone/admin/ticket/components which is probably the best we have. I'm not quite sure what to make of that list. Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: random thought: identify the components that lack owners
Tres Seaver wrote: > Hmm, as an outsider, the FWT's job (reviewing and accepting PLIPs) is to > do what a single BFDL would do in a project would have one. It might seem so from a certain point of view. That's however not how it has been intended and not quite what the current status is. Here's the current situation from my POV (German-style, as in: short and not meant to offend anyone, even if it sounds like it): In the early days we had two BDFL. One for code, one for UI. The one for code got busy growing his company and isn't involved in the core development anymore. We move on some years, get a terrible experience with the 2.1 release and we realize we need to do something. Folks sit down and create the framework team. It is intended to be a barrier for inclusion of bad and unfinished code into the core. The intended process of how growing Plone should work since the 2.1 release up until now is officially: - Someone writes a PLIP. - The community at discusses and generates consensus on whether or not a PLIP should be accepted and if it should be included in the core. - The submitter writes the code needed and submits it to the framework team for a particular release. - The framework team decides about the technical merit of the implementation and if the goals outlined in the PLIP are met. - The release manager for a release is appointed by the foundation board. He has a final say in rejecting or overruling the recommendation made by the framework team. That's the official story so far. The framework team does not have a mandate to decide about the general merit of a PLIP, but only on the technical one. It is currently a peer-review team. It is only elected for one release at a time and doesn't have any mandate to care about the long-term roadmap of Plone. What we are missing indeed these days is a technical long-term roadmap and an authoritative team to set it. Right now various core developers, including me, Martin and Wichert to name a few of the most craziest contributers, push some parts into a direction at times. I'm officially abusing the lack of an established process for Plone SVN trunk to change it to my personal will right now. That is easy in the short term but not a good idea in the mid or long term. I think we need to address this issue and have an official story for "Who inherits the role of Alan". History of open source projects have proven, that once a founder has stepped down from being a BDFL there is no way to go back to having a dictator again, so we need a team. But maybe this only my personal view of the current situation? Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: random thought: identify the components that lack owners
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hanno Schlichting wrote: > Jon Stahl wrote: >>> I'm wondering why this would be a task for the framework team? >> I'm open for suggestions about who else might take it on. > > I'd say the general development community. > >> I think we have a bit of a problem in that we have no >> formally-designated leadership team for the codebase of this project. >> The FWT seems like the closest thing we have in general, and on this >> topic, they (including you, Wichert) seem like the folks with the most >> relevant knowledge. > > The people with the general knowledge might indeed be the ones, that > follow this particular mailing list. > > I'd be very reluctant to make the framework team into a general code > leadership team, though. That's explicitly *not* what it has been > designed for and the way it is elected and the people are recruited > doesn't give them a lot of authority for this matter. It's also not what > they signed up for. > > In my opinion we do not have an official leader or leadership team for > matters of general code and development related topics. This has been > the case since Alan stopped doing this job. If the community feels like > we should get such an authority back, we need to communicate this and > find a way of establishing such a team. This is too important to just be > assigned as an additional duty to an existing entity. Hmm, as an outsider, the FWT's job (reviewing and accepting PLIPs) is to do what a single BFDL would do in a project would have one; that same BFDL would also be the person who answered questions like, "should we rip out this bit of code because it has no champion / owner / maintainer?" In other words, it seems to me that the FWT does have responsibility for "architectural oversight" of Plone. Just my 0.01EU, of course, Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design"http://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI3SbN+gerLs4ltQ4RAqNUAJwNbZqUJg+Ga8O+Nwn/UPrN5Q+YjwCePBvw XGRKtnfSL2hKArEJr0lZOw8= =Kde8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: random thought: identify the components that lack owners
Jon Stahl wrote: >> I'm wondering why this would be a task for the framework team? > > I'm open for suggestions about who else might take it on. I'd say the general development community. > I think we have a bit of a problem in that we have no > formally-designated leadership team for the codebase of this project. > The FWT seems like the closest thing we have in general, and on this > topic, they (including you, Wichert) seem like the folks with the most > relevant knowledge. The people with the general knowledge might indeed be the ones, that follow this particular mailing list. I'd be very reluctant to make the framework team into a general code leadership team, though. That's explicitly *not* what it has been designed for and the way it is elected and the people are recruited doesn't give them a lot of authority for this matter. It's also not what they signed up for. In my opinion we do not have an official leader or leadership team for matters of general code and development related topics. This has been the case since Alan stopped doing this job. If the community feels like we should get such an authority back, we need to communicate this and find a way of establishing such a team. This is too important to just be assigned as an additional duty to an existing entity. Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
RE: [Framework-Team] random thought: identify the components that lack owners
> -Original Message- > From: Wichert Akkerman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Wichert Akkerman > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 12:03 AM > To: Jon Stahl > Cc: framework-team@lists.plone.org > Subject: Re: [Framework-Team] random thought: identify the components that > lack owners > > Previously Jon Stahl wrote: > > We were just chatting a bit here at ONE/Northwest global HQ and the > following idea came up... > > > > Hanno pointed out to me a short while ago that a number of key core Plone > components don't really have strong, active owners. e.g. Wicked, Users + > Groups UI, etc. > > > > However, there's really no definitive list of these that we can use to > recruit more talent. > > > > Could y'all put your heads together via email and draft up such a list, > which we could then use to do some targeted recruiting? > > I'm wondering why this would be a task for the framework team? I'm open for suggestions about who else might take it on. I think we have a bit of a problem in that we have no formally-designated leadership team for the codebase of this project. The FWT seems like the closest thing we have in general, and on this topic, they (including you, Wichert) seem like the folks with the most relevant knowledge. :jon ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] random thought: identify the components that lack owners
Previously Jon Stahl wrote: > We were just chatting a bit here at ONE/Northwest global HQ and the following > idea came up... > > Hanno pointed out to me a short while ago that a number of key core Plone > components don't really have strong, active owners. e.g. Wicked, Users + > Groups UI, etc. > > However, there's really no definitive list of these that we can use to > recruit more talent. > > Could y'all put your heads together via email and draft up such a list, which > we could then use to do some targeted recruiting? I'm wondering why this would be a task for the framework team? Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
