Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-26 Thread Tom Lazar

On 13.05.2009, at 01:23, Steve McMahon wrote:


By my reading, here is the list of those willing to participate in a
Plone 4 framework team:

Raphael R.
Ross P.
Matthew W.
David G.
Calvin H.P.
Alec M.
Erik R,
Laurence R.

[...]
If you'd like your name added, or removed, please put in a message  
soon.


i think, i just disqualified myself by not having read the framework  
list for over two weeks now :(


sadly, that is a pretty accurate indicator of my current resources for  
unpaid, non-family related commitment in general, so i'm afraid i'll  
have to pass.


tom



___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-13 Thread Andreas Zeidler

On May 13, 2009, at 1:23 AM, Steve McMahon wrote:

That's eight names, and an excellent set of skills for a release
that's not likely to emphasize UI work.


great team — congrats! :)


andi

--
zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de
friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779
pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/
plone 3.2.2 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/



PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-12 Thread Alec Mitchell
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu wrote:
 Folks,

 A gentle prod since Steve wants to have something to vote on by Friday

 There seems to be general agreement on the hybrid team idea. Can we pare
 this down to a list of 7 people?

 We currently have responses of:
 available: Raphael (3), Ross (4), Matt (4)
 unavailable: Andi (3)

I'd be happy to be a part of this new framework team, though obviously
people from the existing teams should have priority (as should any
people deeply involved in Plone trunk development like Martin and
Hanno).

Alec

___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-12 Thread Erik Rose

We currently have responses of:
available: Raphael (3), Ross (4), Matt (4)
unavailable: Andi (3)


I'm available. If a million other people want to do it, I'll be  
equally happy to bow out and just write a bunch of PLIPs.


Erik

___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-12 Thread Steve McMahon
By my reading, here is the list of those willing to participate in a
Plone 4 framework team:

Raphael R.
Ross P.
Matthew W.
David G.
Calvin H.P.
Alec M.
Erik R,
Laurence R.

That's eight names, and an excellent set of skills for a release
that's not likely to emphasize UI work.

If you'd like your name added, or removed, please put in a message soon.

Ideally, a framework team should have an odd number of members in
order to avoid tie votes. However, in watching the last couple of
voting sessions for Plone 3, I noticed that there were not that many
PLIPS on which every person voted. So, I think the 'odd number' rule
of thumb isn't really that important.

The first matter of business for a new Framework Team is to nominate a
Release Manager to the board. My impression is that Eric Steele has
been accepted by acclamation. If anyone would like to have a private
framework team discussion on that, please let me know in an e-mail,
and we'll get a list organized to allow non-public discussion.

Thanks all! Steve




On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Laurence Rowe l...@lrowe.co.uk wrote:
 Jon Stahl wrote:

 Eric Steele wrote:

 Folks,

 A gentle prod since Steve wants to have something to vote on by
 Friday

 There seems to be general agreement on the hybrid team idea. Can we pare
 this down to a list of 7 people?

 We currently have responses of:
 available: Raphael (3), Ross (4), Matt (4)
 unavailable: Andi (3)

 I'd like to gently encourage Hanno to play a formal role on this new FWT.
  As the Plone trunk/future release manager and our most prolific
 contributor, I think it will be important for him to provide continuity
 between the Plone 4 release and Plone Future.
 I would also personally love to see Martin Aspeli and Laurence Rowe in the
 mix as well, since they have such deep understandings of our stack and are
 helping architect large chunks of the future.

 I'm happy to be a part of this team too, presuming that most of the work
 will be later in the summer.

 Laurence


 ___
 Framework-Team mailing list
 Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
 http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team




-- 

Steve McMahon
Reid-McMahon, LLC
st...@reidmcmahon.com
st...@dcn.org

___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-12 Thread Ricardo Newbery


On May 12, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Steve McMahon wrote:


Ideally, a framework team should have an odd number of members in
order to avoid tie votes. However, in watching the last couple of
voting sessions for Plone 3, I noticed that there were not that many
PLIPS on which every person voted. So, I think the 'odd number' rule
of thumb isn't really that important.



parliamentary pedantry mode on

Of course an 'odd number' usually only becomes important if something  
contentious is on the table which can easily result in all members  
casting votes.


Since most groups define majority approval as greater than half, a  
split vote means it fails.  The problem arises when a proposal can be  
legitimately worded in either the affirmative or the negative.  So in  
the case of a split vote, the same proposed action can either pass or  
fall just by stating it in a different form.


In the case of PLIPs, there seems to be an unofficial rule that they  
are always worded in the affirmative as a proposal to change the  
status quo.  As long as that rule is enforced and these are the only  
votes ever solicited then an 'odd number' rule is probably superfluous.


parliamentary pedantry mode off


Ric

Any guesses on how I wasted my college years?  ;-)




___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-10 Thread David Glick

On May 10, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Eric Steele wrote:


Folks,

A gentle prod since Steve wants to have something to vote on by  
Friday


There seems to be general agreement on the hybrid team idea. Can we  
pare this down to a list of 7 people?


We currently have responses of:
available: Raphael (3), Ross (4), Matt (4)
unavailable: Andi (3)



I'm also available for the new team.

peace,

David Glick
Web Developer
ONE/Northwest

New tools and strategies for engaging people in protecting the  
environment


http://www.onenw.org
davidgl...@onenw.org
work: (206) 286-1235 x32
mobile: (206) 679-3833

Subscribe to ONEList, our email newsletter!
Practical advice for effective online engagement
http://www.onenw.org/full_signup





___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-10 Thread Jon Stahl

Eric Steele wrote:

Folks,

A gentle prod since Steve wants to have something to vote on by 
Friday


There seems to be general agreement on the hybrid team idea. Can we 
pare this down to a list of 7 people?


We currently have responses of:
available: Raphael (3), Ross (4), Matt (4)
unavailable: Andi (3)
I'd like to gently encourage Hanno to play a formal role on this new 
FWT.  As the Plone trunk/future release manager and our most prolific 
contributor, I think it will be important for him to provide continuity 
between the Plone 4 release and Plone Future. 

I would also personally love to see Martin Aspeli and Laurence Rowe in 
the mix as well, since they have such deep understandings of our stack 
and are helping architect large chunks of the future.


US$0.02,
:jon

___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-08 Thread Ross Patterson
Raphael Ritz raphael.r...@incf.org writes:

 Eric Steele wrote:
 Since the new Plone 4 is looking like, essentially, a transitional
 release, another possibility would be to pull its framework team
 members from each of the currently-existing teams.
   

 I'm with Eric here and offer to participate
 from the Plone 3 FWT side.

Ditto from the 4 side.

Ross


___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-08 Thread Andreas Zeidler

On May 8, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote:

Eric Steele wrote:
Since the new Plone 4 is looking like, essentially, a  
transitional  release, another possibility would be to pull its  
framework team  members from each of the currently-existing teams.


I'm with Eric here and offer to participate
from the Plone 3 FWT side.


+1 on eric's suggestion.  unfortunately, i'm gonna have to pass this  
time, though.  with our second baby due very soon now as well as blob  
support + unified folders on the roadmap, i think i'll be busy enough  
as it is...



andi

--
zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - i...@zitc.de
friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779
pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/
plone 3.2.2 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone/



PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


[Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-07 Thread Martin Aspeli

Rob Gietema wrote:


  I'd nominate the incumbent 3.x team for this; this team already has
  the mindset to get this going; the future plone team (trunk team?) is
  focusing on vision right now, which I think may not be what's needed
  for an in-between team.

On second thought; this may be a significant enough release, with it's
own 4.x release series, that perhaps a new team altogether is
warranted?


It would be a shame if the development of Plone trunk will get less 
focus from the FWT when working on Plone 4. So it might indeed not be a 
bad idea to have 2 teams, one team for Plone 4 and one team for Plone trunk.


I agree. I really wouldn't want to disband or repurpose the trunk 
framework team or release manager. We probably want to look for a new 
team, maybe with a bit more overlap with the existing/trunk teams than 
usual.


Martin

--
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book


___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-07 Thread Steve McMahon
Let me ask what the level of enthusiasm is in the current P3 framework
team. If they'd shift to become the new Plone 2009 team and the
existing p4 team would become the trunk team, that might be good. We
could recruit to add to the new Plone 2009 (old P3) team if some folks
are burned out.

IMHO, three different framework teams is not organizationally
supportable. We'd drown in confusion.

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com wrote:
 Rob Gietema wrote:

      I'd nominate the incumbent 3.x team for this; this team already has
      the mindset to get this going; the future plone team (trunk team?)
 is
      focusing on vision right now, which I think may not be what's needed
      for an in-between team.

    On second thought; this may be a significant enough release, with it's
    own 4.x release series, that perhaps a new team altogether is
    warranted?


 It would be a shame if the development of Plone trunk will get less focus
 from the FWT when working on Plone 4. So it might indeed not be a bad idea
 to have 2 teams, one team for Plone 4 and one team for Plone trunk.

 I agree. I really wouldn't want to disband or repurpose the trunk
 framework team or release manager. We probably want to look for a new team,
 maybe with a bit more overlap with the existing/trunk teams than usual.

 Martin

 --
 Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
 want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book


 ___
 Framework-Team mailing list
 Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
 http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team




-- 

Steve McMahon
Reid-McMahon, LLC
st...@reidmcmahon.com
st...@dcn.org

___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team


Re: [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 2009: Going from here

2009-05-07 Thread Eric Steele
Since the new Plone 4 is looking like, essentially, a transitional  
release, another possibility would be to pull its framework team  
members from each of the currently-existing teams.


Eric

On May 7, 2009, at 7:58 PM, Steve McMahon wrote:


Let me ask what the level of enthusiasm is in the current P3 framework
team. If they'd shift to become the new Plone 2009 team and the
existing p4 team would become the trunk team, that might be good. We
could recruit to add to the new Plone 2009 (old P3) team if some folks
are burned out.

IMHO, three different framework teams is not organizationally
supportable. We'd drown in confusion.

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Martin Aspeli optilude+li...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

Rob Gietema wrote:


 I'd nominate the incumbent 3.x team for this; this team  
already has
 the mindset to get this going; the future plone team (trunk  
team?)

is
 focusing on vision right now, which I think may not be  
what's needed

 for an in-between team.

   On second thought; this may be a significant enough release,  
with it's

   own 4.x release series, that perhaps a new team altogether is
   warranted?


It would be a shame if the development of Plone trunk will get  
less focus
from the FWT when working on Plone 4. So it might indeed not be a  
bad idea

to have 2 teams, one team for Plone 4 and one team for Plone trunk.


I agree. I really wouldn't want to disband or repurpose the trunk
framework team or release manager. We probably want to look for a  
new team,
maybe with a bit more overlap with the existing/trunk teams than  
usual.


Martin

--
Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who
want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book


___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team





--

Steve McMahon
Reid-McMahon, LLC
st...@reidmcmahon.com
st...@dcn.org

___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team



___
Framework-Team mailing list
Framework-Team@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team