[Framework-Team] Re: Quick team meeting
Hanno Schlichting writes: >> So far, much of the Plone 4 work has happened in narrower circles to >> free it up for prototyping, visioning, and imagining new approaches. >> This has been in part to isolate such a process from the paralysis that >> can come from discussion of edge cases or disagreements which are more >> proper and valuable at a later stage. I raised a concern that as we >> start presenting this work more publicly, we should think about >> communicating and setting expectations for the impact of the backwards >> incompatible changes. I proposed adding an explicit, formalized part of >> the PLIP procedure for community impact assessments. I'd love a better >> name, but the idea is a place to communicate to the various parts of >> Plone communities (developers, integrators, themers, users, etc.), >> "Here's what you need to know to update your code/skills. Here's where >> to find documentation." I offered to take the lead on this. > > Sounds good. I think this is a logical extension of the "Documentation > Impact" section we added to the 3.3 PLIP process. Yeah, I'm now finding myself rethinking "documentation". It might help focus to think of it as "communication", where the problem being solved is communicating to the wider community. > One of the things I'd like to have a more important role in the PLIP > process is the "upgrade guide" we have on plone.org. I think taking the > "What's New" documentation from Python > (http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/2.6.html) as an example could be > valuable here. I tried to introduce this to Zope2 at > http://docs.zope.org/zope2/releases/2.12/WHATSNEW.html with the chapters > written about Acquisition and IContainer changes. That's an excellent point to tie into. If we do most of the work as a part of the PLIP, then that'll increase the likelihood of effective documentation making it into such an "upgrade guide". > This kind of information is probably best written by a combination of > the documentation team as we've done it for Plone 3.3 with more > involvement of the PLIP authors themselves. Yeah, I just want to make sure that it's *structurally* a part of the PLIP process. Ross ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Quick team meeting
Ross Patterson wrote: > Hanno Schlichting > writes: > > Four of us (calvinhp, ErikRose, ErikRose, zenwryly) made it to the > meeting and came up with a few things to act on. I'll briefly describe > them here so we can discuss. Awesome! > Some of the discussion centered around possible changes or > clarifications to the PLIP process. This begged the question, where is > PLIP procedure documented? The two current main sources of written documentation are: https://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/FrameworkTeam and hidden in http://plone.org/documentation/manual/plone-developer-reference/overview/referencemanual-all-pages it would be good if the relevant bits from the latter could be incorporated into the wiki. The general idea is to have all "development of" type information inside the Trac wiki. > As hanno said: > >> I tried to take the initiative back in January to incorporate the >> changed process from the Plone 3.x framework team and required >> adjustments for the 4.0 process into our official process >> documentation. The discussion hasn't been very fruitful and ended >> without a clear result. > > So we need to determine the official home for the PLIP process > documentation and evaluate the status of that which calvinhp said he'd > take the lead on. See above. I think the process for the 3.x release and 4.0 release should be somewhat different. 4.0 is supposed to make many more interconnected and radical changes, as we ever do in a single 3.x release. The process needs to reflect this in some way. But I would appreciate it if Calvin could indeed take the lead on this and I'll be happy to comment and give my feedback. > Since the Americans refused to distinguish themselves with clearly > recognizable accents :) , I'm not sure whether it was calvinhp or > ErikRose who suggested that we start sort of public presentation of > changes happening in Plone 4. The main goal is to reduce surprises. We > agreed that an informal process of blogging in more widely accessible > language about what makes it into the ChangeLog would be good. This > could also be a way to collect feedback as well. Discussion through > blog comments may become a problem but we'll tackle that if it comes to > Pass. ErikRose said he'd take the lead on this. This sounds like an excellent idea. I tried to write up something in less technical terms inside those "Trac PLIP's" which hopefully go into the direction of this. They haven't seen too widespread exposure yet, from what I know. Is this the kind of information you are looking for? There is even some more high-level roadmap information that isn't written down at any point but has only been communicated in informal conversations. I'd be happy to try to bring some of those to the public in form of blog posts or any other form people find valuable. > So far, much of the Plone 4 work has happened in narrower circles to > free it up for prototyping, visioning, and imagining new approaches. > This has been in part to isolate such a process from the paralysis that > can come from discussion of edge cases or disagreements which are more > proper and valuable at a later stage. I raised a concern that as we > start presenting this work more publicly, we should think about > communicating and setting expectations for the impact of the backwards > incompatible changes. I proposed adding an explicit, formalized part of > the PLIP procedure for community impact assessments. I'd love a better > name, but the idea is a place to communicate to the various parts of > Plone communities (developers, integrators, themers, users, etc.), > "Here's what you need to know to update your code/skills. Here's where > to find documentation." I offered to take the lead on this. Sounds good. I think this is a logical extension of the "Documentation Impact" section we added to the 3.3 PLIP process. One of the things I'd like to have a more important role in the PLIP process is the "upgrade guide" we have on plone.org. I think taking the "What's New" documentation from Python (http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/2.6.html) as an example could be valuable here. I tried to introduce this to Zope2 at http://docs.zope.org/zope2/releases/2.12/WHATSNEW.html with the chapters written about Acquisition and IContainer changes. This kind of information is probably best written by a combination of the documentation team as we've done it for Plone 3.3 with more involvement of the PLIP authors themselves. Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Quick team meeting
Thanks for the excellent summary! Previously Ross Patterson wrote: > The last item concerned future meetings. When should we do this meeting > in the future? Every other week or every third work? Thursday? > Friday? Would all of the FWT members weigh in with both preferences and > outright scheduling conflicts for future meetings. Then we can > reconcile that information and schedule a regular meeting. Workdays do not work for me. Mornings in the weekend are probably best. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman 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
[Framework-Team] Re: Quick team meeting
Hanno Schlichting writes: > Thanks for taking the initiative here. > > I'll not gonna make it to todays tune-up nor the conf call, though :( Four of us (calvinhp, ErikRose, ErikRose, zenwryly) made it to the meeting and came up with a few things to act on. I'll briefly describe them here so we can discuss. Some of the discussion centered around possible changes or clarifications to the PLIP process. This begged the question, where is PLIP procedure documented? As hanno said: > I tried to take the initiative back in January to incorporate the > changed process from the Plone 3.x framework team and required > adjustments for the 4.0 process into our official process > documentation. The discussion hasn't been very fruitful and ended > without a clear result. So we need to determine the official home for the PLIP process documentation and evaluate the status of that which calvinhp said he'd take the lead on. Since the Americans refused to distinguish themselves with clearly recognizable accents :) , I'm not sure whether it was calvinhp or ErikRose who suggested that we start sort of public presentation of changes happening in Plone 4. The main goal is to reduce surprises. We agreed that an informal process of blogging in more widely accessible language about what makes it into the ChangeLog would be good. This could also be a way to collect feedback as well. Discussion through blog comments may become a problem but we'll tackle that if it comes to Pass. ErikRose said he'd take the lead on this. So far, much of the Plone 4 work has happened in narrower circles to free it up for prototyping, visioning, and imagining new approaches. This has been in part to isolate such a process from the paralysis that can come from discussion of edge cases or disagreements which are more proper and valuable at a later stage. I raised a concern that as we start presenting this work more publicly, we should think about communicating and setting expectations for the impact of the backwards incompatible changes. I proposed adding an explicit, formalized part of the PLIP procedure for community impact assessments. I'd love a better name, but the idea is a place to communicate to the various parts of Plone communities (developers, integrators, themers, users, etc.), "Here's what you need to know to update your code/skills. Here's where to find documentation." I offered to take the lead on this. The last item concerned future meetings. When should we do this meeting in the future? Every other week or every third work? Thursday? Friday? Would all of the FWT members weigh in with both preferences and outright scheduling conflicts for future meetings. Then we can reconcile that information and schedule a regular meeting. Those present on the call can add details in response to this message and discussions can start from there. Ross ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Quick team meeting
Hanno Schlichting wrote: Hi Calvin. Thanks for taking the initiative here. I'll not gonna make it to todays tune-up nor the conf call, though :( Same for me :-( But I'm delighted to see this happening. [..] In my dual role of release manager and major code contributer I have payed too little attention on communicating the changes and ideas for the 4.0 release. I'd welcome suggestions on how to improve this situation and ways of turning "Hanno's playground called trunk" back into a managed collaborative environment. Maybe by morphing Hanno into Plone? ;-) (sorry, couldn't resist) Raphael Cheers, Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: Quick team meeting
Hi Calvin. Thanks for taking the initiative here. I'll not gonna make it to todays tune-up nor the conf call, though :( Calvin Hendryx-Parker wrote: > The next one is this Friday and I'd suggest that we meet at 17:00 GMT. > I'll send out Yugma conference info so we can share desktops if needed. > Their service supports skype so make sure to download the Yugma SE > plugin for skype if you want to skype into the call. > > https://www.yugma.com/share_skype.php > > For the first meeting I'd like to suggest: > * That everyone checkout Plone 4 locally so we can talk at a very high > level about the roadmap for this release > * Better documentation for developers and the PLIP process and how it > has changed What we have in terms of documentation for the release so far is: 1. A mailing list discussion about the high-level goals and process: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.teams.framework/2274 of which various parts are outdated already. 2. A number of PLIP's at http://dev.plone.org/plone/milestone/4.0 which are reasonably up-to-date. I tried to take the initiative back in January to incorporate the changed process from the Plone 3.x framework team and required adjustments for the 4.0 process into our official process documentation. The discussion hasn't been very fruitful and ended without a clear result. I'd welcome it if the 4.0 framework team would take the lead in this matter and started clarifying the PLIP process for 4.0 as required from the framework teams point of view. In my dual role of release manager and major code contributer I have payed too little attention on communicating the changes and ideas for the 4.0 release. I'd welcome suggestions on how to improve this situation and ways of turning "Hanno's playground called trunk" back into a managed collaborative environment. Cheers, Hanno ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
