On Thu, 11 May 2006 18:04:50 +0100, whit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you could market the entire release on PAS if you wanted to, merely
because it is integration technology.
I don't think you could sell Plone on PAS. PAS gives Plone a good
authentication story, for sure, but it's pretty un
On Thu, 11 May 2006 16:45:34 +0100, Rocky Burt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm... this brings up an interesting point. Whit has repeatedly
commented that just because we're having .5 and .0 releases (with
different focuses for each) doesn't mean we can't have a .1 (or .2
or .3, etc) as well.
On Thu, 11 May 2006 16:11:30 +0100, whit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"But in my opinion, if it's November or December instead of October
that's necessary to make this happen, that's a pretty small price to pay
for a release that we can market as a great step forward, not just
another trickle. "
On Thu, 11 May 2006 17:34:33 +0100, Alec Mitchell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually I think an early PLIP freeze and an initial PLIP review is a
very good idea. It will encourage developers to fully form and
document their ideas before going off half-cocked with an
implementation. It will
Maybe moving to a pattern like this (peer-review) would also make
sense for us???
Just my 0.02 Euro
Raphael
i think that is essentially what we have. in the end, the release
manager decides. the FWT is just a gatekeeper to make those decisions
manageable.
-w
--
| david "whit" morris
I think those are good points, and I certainly agree with the merits
of having that separation be clear. I just wonder whether we truly
*can* have such a separation, and whether there then is a vacuum in
leadership and policy guidance that we need to fill, because I think
people are expecting
for some reason, about 5 hours of mail got lost yesterday...so I did not
see opti's originally reply to me.
Alec Mitchell wrote:
On 5/10/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 21:05:04 +0100, whit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /me dons grumpy old former FWT member hat
On 5/11/06, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006 03:03:17 +0100, Hanno Schlichting
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi again.
>
>> From what I have read so far, we tend into the direction of giving this
> release a bit more time. So here is an updated roadmap proposal. The on
On Thu, 2006-11-05 at 10:11 -0500, whit wrote:
> - the meaning of a release is a marketing question. if marketing says
> "we need SoC for publicity reasons", then it makes sense to wait. but
> otherwhise, this should just be a discussion of technical merit and
> preparedness. the framework tea
Martin Aspeli wrote:
On Wed, 10 May 2006 20:37:27 +0100, Rocky Burt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hmm... I'll let the date proposals stew in my mind for a little bit...
but just a comment on the SoC projects. My feeling is that we shouldn't
assume *any* SoC project should make it into plone core
Hanno Schlichting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right, we probably don't need it. I guess I was somehow trying to
> preserve my SoC dates ;)
That in itself isn't a bad idea - we now suddenly have 10 (hopefully) paid
developers doing work for us under the guidance of more (except in the cases of
y
Raphael Ritz wrote:
>
> First, I think we should really encourage the SoC projects by
> defining a time line and process that offers the **possibility**
> of getting results from SoC projects into the 3.0 release.
My intention here was to give all the SoC projects a clear statement
that their cod
Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Plone 3.0
>> -
>> June 26, plip freeze (no more plip's are accepted)
>
> Do we have such a thing? I mean ... people can write PLIPs whenever they
> want :)
Right, we probably don't need it. I guess I was somehow trying to
preserve my SoC dates ;)
> Do we have any
Raphael Ritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course things are involved as all FWT members are also
> (more or less) active members of the community but let us
> not forget: we are an "open source community" which cannot
> be organized like some corporate body ("you have to do this until
> then")
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
[..]
Plone 3.0
-
June 26, plip freeze (no more plip's are accepted)
August 21, proposal freeze (review bundles must be ready)
September 25, feature freeze (all features have been merged)
October 22, first beta release
December 18, first release candidate
January
On Thu, 11 May 2006 08:06:30 +0100, Rob Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
it's okay.. i've cooled off. i'm sorry for flying off the handle.
To be honest, re-reading my post, I completely understand how it would be
taken that way.
Whether it's wearing the framework team hat or not at any
On Thu, 11 May 2006 03:03:17 +0100, Hanno Schlichting
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi again.
From what I have read so far, we tend into the direction of giving this
release a bit more time. So here is an updated roadmap proposal. The one
thing it tries to be is realistic about the dates if we
Martin Aspeli wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006 01:21:21 +0100, Rob Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
whoa, hold on just a minute here. NOBODY, until you, right now, has
ever said
that this is within the scope of the framework team. the framework team
exists for one reason, and that is to vet the
18 matches
Mail list logo
