On 23 Dec 2008, at 12:55, Matthew Wilkes wrote:
PLIPs have their own numbering and are currently stored exclusively
on plone.org.
On 23 Dec 2008, at 13:01, Matthew wrote:
the same or similar workflow to what we currently have
To what extent does the plone.org (PHC) tradition, with or without its
numbering scheme, help the workflow of the FWT and others involved in
PLIPS?
From the outside looking in I see plenty of evidence, over an
extended period, of:
a) most activity being *very disconnected* from the traditional PLIP
b) PLIPs *not gaining updates* at appropriate times
c) roadmap views and other views being *far from true* reflections of
the roadmap.
There is passionate, sometimes heated debate about maintaining and
increasing developer interest in Plone.
IMHO it's of great importance to have a well expressed roadmap and in
recent months the roadmap view has not been reliable.
(I'm not criticising any individual or group for failing to maintain
the links between traditional PLIPs pages and other elements of the
information architecture; I'm encouraging the group to recognise that
some things simply don't happen :)
I'm not sure what advantages managing them in trac would have
considering we'd have to migrate old plips or link seperately and
reconsider numbering.
Numbering is handy, human-friendly, but AFAICT *never* a consideration
when voting.
I'm not sure what I think of this, I think our current system works,
but I'd not be adverse to moving to trac if we had a smooth
migration plan.
Need not be complicated.
At its simplest: a PLIP in Trac does nothing more than refer to the
original PLIP.
Best,
Graham
_______________________________________________
Framework-Team mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
