My only big question is whether it would be strange for patterns to disappear from the library while they are in review. Folks may have seen them before and want to reference them again. In an ideal world it would be nice if we could let the public see a different version of the pattern from the one the reviewer and editor are working on, but I'm not sure we can easily accomplish that. We may want to consider making a copy of the pattern when it goes into review so folks can still see it. I actually think it would be OK in this step to let people continue to make comments--but I'm assuming that there probably wouldn't be *that* many comments and the authors and editors wouldn't be bombarded. However, if the comments would be on a copy, that may not be idea as I envision that when the pattern is published this copy would be deleted. Then the comments would have to either be copied over to the 'final' pattern or be lost (which wouldn't be good).
I also think it's going to be important to have good filtering mechanisms for pattern library users, as well as a clear, concise explanation of the different states of the patterns in the library so folks understand and can control what patterns they are using/viewing. It would be *great* if there were some way to configure your default view for this filter when you set up an account, for example to only see "Reviewed" Patterns. It will be especially important that the pattern authors understand the implications of the different steps (and the fact that they can skip steps) as they move their patterns through the workflow. I am wondering what will be done if a pattern author never requests a review--will the patterns be triggered go into that state at some point, perhaps after an effort to contact the author? I'm guessing some people will author patterns and move on to other things, and we may *want* to move the patterns forward even if the author can't continue to work with us.
A final question that came up for me is how will the many editors will know which pattern to work on with an author. I'm guessing there will be a large pool of editors, and if patterns aren't either directed to or quickly picked up by a particular person, it may be difficult to ensure that a pattern is edited efficiently. We *could* have a system where while first all editors are informed that a particular pattern is ready for review, and if someone doesn't "pick it up" in a certain timeframe (e.g. 3 business days), it is assigned to someone. Then we'd need some sort of system to make sure there was an even rotation among editors.
I think a lot of these are fine points, though that we can continue to think through as things move forward--once again, nice work! :)
Allison On Jan 19, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Jonathan Hung wrote:
Thanks everyone for the great comments and feedback. It appears there isn't anything major that needs addressing, so we're going to move forward with planning the implementation of the workflow and the community features that support it. Attached is an updated diagram illustrating the same process but with extra elaboration how each stage works. If you have feedback still to give, please share them even though we're starting work on implementing this. Thanks all! - Jonathan. --- Jonathan Hung / [email protected] Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto Tel: (416) 946-3002On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Colin Clark <[email protected]> wrote:<OSDPL- Workflow4.png>_______________________________________________________Jonathan,You've put together a very clear, easy to use, and forward-looking plan for our pattern library. I like the way you've balanced openness with author comfort, providing various checkpoints for drafting, editing, and sharingideas with the larger community.Looks like you've received some good feedback. It's really great to see thisvision shaping up. Building a healthy community around the OSDPL is undoubtedly an important part of Fluid's long term sustainability. +1 Colin On 14-Jan-09, at 10:55 AM, Jonathan Hung wrote:Hi everyone.Over the next 3 to 4 months, we will be making a push to get the OpenSource Design Pattern library sustainable. In order to reach that point, there is a roadmap for the work to be completed. Part of that roadmap includes the implementation of a flexible pattern workflow that helps guide a pattern author from draft to publication, while allowing input from the community throughout the process. I would like to get your opinion on the following proposed workflow. The workflow aims to balance the author's comfort and privacy, while allowing for a larger community to have their input on a design pattern.Please examine the attached diagram. The main points to get from thisworkflow: - While in "Draft" state, the pattern is visible only to the author. The author can save and revise their patterns as they wish. - While in "Request for Public Comments" state, all registered userson the OSDPL can view and comment on the pattern. The public internetwill not be able to see the patten (although anyone can register foran account). Such patterns are clearly indicated as "Work in Progress"as to not confuse it with "Published" patterns. - While in "Request for Review", pattern Editors review the patternand collaborate with the pattern author to get it to a polished state.- To have a pattern stamped as "Reviewed", the author must: request areview; and have an Editor review and publish the pattern.- For flexibility, the pattern author can publish their pattern at anytime. But doing so will cause their pattern to be stamped as "Not Reviewed".-- this allows for immediate visibility to the world and could createsome interesting interactions.-- registered users will be able to comment, rank, and flag patterns.-- it is possible to remove a pattern from the public and considered on a case-by-case basis.Throughout the workflow notifications are sent to the relevant parties alerting them that new content is available for them view, comment, orreview (in the case of an Editor). All patterns that are recentlypublished or in a "Request for Public Comments" state will be featured clearly and easily accessible on the site (after some improvements tothe site's look and feel). What are your thoughts on this? Too complicated? Not open enough? Needs more community involvement during the workflow?We aim to start work early next week, so your feedback is appreciated!For more information on the workflow, timeline of work, and other proposed work, please see this wiki page: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/x/kQNS - Jonathan. PS. While designing this workflow I felt like a politician.... Balancing the rights of the individual while benefiting the greater good. Excuse me while I go and get this awful taste out of my mouth. :) --- Jonathan Hung / [email protected] Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto Tel: (416) 946-3002<OSDPL- Workflow3 .png>_______________________________________________________fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work--- Colin Clark Technical Lead, Fluid Project Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto http://fluidproject.orgfluid-work mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
Allison Bloodworth Senior User Interaction Designer Educational Technology Services University of California, Berkeley (415) 377-8243 [email protected] _______________________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
