On 2/26/11 9:22 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
Alec Mitchell<ale...@gmail.com>  writes:

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Hanno Schlichting<ha...@hannosch.eu>  wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Elizabeth Leddy<ele...@umich.edu>  wrote:
Feel free to respond over email or just edit the
document: http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PlipProcess>
Great work!
It seems likely that this process will require a also larger "team"
for any given release (particularly given the historic attrition rate
of team members over the course the review process), along with a
reasonable mechanism for members to opt-out of a particular cycle if
Definitely.  One of the larger motivations for this change is to be less
impacted by FWT attrition.  As we discussed it, the FWT would become
more of a framework *pool* allowing members to get busy and then come
back later.  Have we spelled out the process for bringing in a new FWT
member as needed?

at the risk of repeating myself: This all reminds me very much of
handling submissions to scientific journals. They appear in regular
intervals and have a review process in place to decide what goes in.

One difference there, however, is how the review process is organized.
Usually, you have one or several editors (think framework team) who receive
submissions and do a first scan to see if a submission is within scope at all.
If so, they typically ask one or several (three is quite common) peers
to take a closer look and to provide a written review. Based on those
review reports the editor(s) then decide about acceptance.

So one major difference to our current process - if you compare the
framework team to an editorial board - is that the FWT members would
not need to do all the reviewing in detail but rather organize and
judge the reviews. Who gets asked to provide a review is decided on
a case-by-case basis and in practice adds up to many more than on
the editorial board.

Maybe such a model could work for us as well?



Framework-Team mailing list

Framework-Team mailing list

Reply via email to