[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-website] Death to the roadmap page?
> Unfortunately, the situation is *much worse* than Marie indicates, as the > roadmap page is completely obsolete and outdated since we switched to trac. > It's more than a bit embarrassing that we link to it from the home page. You're right Steve, the situation is much worse. Unfortunately we have a tendency to provide the information that we think people need instead of addressing what people are saying the need. Marie is a great example of someone crying out for improvements and specifically pointing out things we could do better. I think it would be a good idea to involve Mark and the marketing team on this. Mark will have a good idea on how we can better present ourselves and our critical information to all ranges of users and potential users. JoAnna ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: [Evangelism] Re: Re: Plone Messaging
> Documentation is still an issue and I think the board needs to consider > hiring someone to manage that area (like we do our release manager). The > documenation team is great and hard working but everyone has to work > full-time and can only dedicate xx amount of time (I keep trying to > contribute but time and life get in the way, which I know is true for > everyone). Paying a manager for the documentation section isn't going to solve the root of the problem: we don't have enough people contributing correct documentation that is broad enough to apply to most use cases of Plone. If you want to pay someone to do documentation, pay them to write it, not to manage the section. ( and no, that is not a viable solution either) The majority of our doc Editors are doing a better job than anyone could have expected. I'm not inclined to change how we're operating until we've completed our current work. Plus, paying someone doesn't change the fact that we are busy with work and have lives outside of work and Plone. Doesn't really solve any of the issues we have with documentation, in my not so humble opinion. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: [Evangelism] Plone Messaging (was: How would you position Plone?)
> So could a team be formed or delegated with the responsibility of > reviewing Plone messaging? Would such an institution be a slippery > slope to too much dogma or other stifling restriction? What might be > some other ways to improve messaging in Plone communities? Is this an > issue we're already addressing sufficiently and we just need to give it > time? Is there a value to enshrining this process even if it's already > happening? Is this not an issue? :) I believe that this is already being addressed with the work Gabrielle, Mark, et. al. have been doing. It's slowly becoming more and more visible (15 Questions, organized representation at events like NTEN & World Internet Expo, etc). While I'm not sure exactly who all is involved on the team, from what I've heard, there is a plan taking shape. I'm sure, like most of our teams, they probably need more help. Personally, I think one of the things that would help is a formal PR/Marketing/Evangelism contact so that any journalists looking to write about Plone or any press releases put out always have a representative to go to. Establishing a relationship with the such people can be very valuable when it comes to promoting events like World Plone Day or the Conference. Telling people to contact a mailing list just isn't enough (tho I think it should still be done so we have a record of such messages/inquiries). Establishing a leadership team for the doc team has helped us get organized and we operate much like the framework team. Having a recognized leadership for all of Plone's working groups might benefit from a guiding team? ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Plone-docs] [Framework-Team] Plone 3.5
(sorry if you get this twice) > The idea is also to catch up with our platforms (Zope 2, Zope 3, CMF) as > we're starting to look a bit out of date on Zope 2.10 + Zope 3.3 + CMF 2.1. What's the significance of 3.5? Why can't this catch up be done in increments? 3.4 then 3.5 then 3.6? My worry here is that catching up will mean a repeat of 2.5. Not to mention if we are changing this much stuff on a platform level that it won't get documented. The framework team would have to be responsible for documenting these changes as the documentation team just does not have the man power. Sure, we made the 3.3 release w/ documentation and that was relatively small stuff. If you go for a bigger release under the 3.x series we're going to end up back where we startedNew technologies and no documentation. This will further the idea that being a Plone developer is only for elite code jockeys. That's not really something we want to reinforce, is it? I gotta tell ya, this idea makes me really really nervous. I thought the whole point of 3.x was to be stable and not repeat past mistakes? I'm all for getting closer to 4.x but we need to do it in bite sized steps, not all at once. J. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
