[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
Previously Steve McMahon wrote: The Plone 4 Framework Team has been selected. Congratulations to: Matthew Wilkes, David Glick, Calvin Hendryx-Parker, Laurence Rowe, Martijn Pieters, Erik Rose, and Ross Patterson. As anyone who's been following Plone development will immediately see, this is an awesome team! That is an excellent group of highly skilled people, my congratulations to them. I am however very disappointed by the fact that this framework team only consists of highly skilled developers and does not have anyone with user interface design experience. Plone used to have a very clean and simple interface, but over the years it has become more complex and disorganised, and as a result we now too often see new people being confused by Plone's user interface. The people who used to have a lot of influence over the user interface design of Plone (people like Alexander and Geir) are too busy with other things these days, and that is very noticable. Plone desperately needs to make good UI design part of its process again, and that is something that developers simply can not do. I have had the pleasure to work a lot with UI designers this year and I have learned very directly that our developer minds are simply not wired correctly for it. For the Plone 3 framework team we have Danny on the framework team: he is not a top-notch developer but has he a lot of UI design experience, and that has already proven to be a very positive influence. For Plone 4 that kind of experience is even more critical since we aim to not only refactor a lot of the Plone codebase but also its entire user interface. Hence my surprise when the new framework team does not contain anyone with proper UI design skills. I have heard the argument that the framework team will consult with UI designers where needed, but that is exactly the wrong approach and will lead to the situation we have right now. User interface design needs to be part of the process, not an optional component. I strongly suggest that this decision is reconsidered and someone with proven UI design experience is added to the framework team. Regards, Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netIt is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
Wichert, I can assure you that UI expertise was a factor in the discussion, as was the need for a balanced team. The selection decision that was made was unanimous, and followed healthy, constructive debate. I don't think it's appropriate to strongly suggest that this decision is reconsidered. This undermines the selection process and cannot be addressed without either opening the archives for the discussion, or starting down a slippery slope of discussing individuals in way that could quickly become destructive. It also undermines the current team before they have had a chance to prove themselves. The selection committee was granted a private mailing list precisely so that they would be able to have a factual debate. I really do not want anyone who was part of that debate to feel the need to justify the decision on any one individual. That said, I sincerely hope that Danny, Alex, Geir and many others will weigh on UI concerns. I know Hanno (presuming he is the release manager) has concrete plans for getting more UI feedback from a wider group, earlier in the process. In particular, one of the things we'd discussed and would like to see more of, is a consultative approach where the framework team reviewer asks for review from people outside the team. Anyone who is motivated to contribute opinions will be heartily encouraged to do so, and it will be within the framework team's remit to actively solict those opinions. Martin ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
On 18.12.2008, at 11:21, Martin Aspeli wrote: In particular, one of the things we'd discussed and would like to see more of, is a consultative approach where the framework team reviewer asks for review from people outside the team. Anyone who is motivated to contribute opinions will be heartily encouraged to do so, and it will be within the framework team's remit to actively solict those opinions. i really want to stress this point (if only by repeating it here...) this is a fundamental change in how the framework team will operate from now on. we're no longer just a group of individuals who quietly need to make some sense of PLIPs and their implementation on their own but more of a clearing house. i can't imagine that any PLIP will be approved or denied without the evaluating fwt members having consulted with at least one of the 'usual UI suspects' beforehand. and as wichert himself already mentioned: all of those are currently very busy anyway, so i think it's best for everybody, if they are relieved from the 'leg work' and can focus on UI issues without having to follow all of the fwt discussions and proceedings. cheers, tom ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
On 18.12.2008, at 11:34, Wichert Akkerman wrote: [...] things like user interface and documentation should be a full part of the process, absolutely and therefore should be reflected in the membership of the group which makes decisions based on those factors. i think that conclusion is the only part where we disagree. can we agree at least on that? ;-) cheers, tom Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netIt is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. -- SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ ___ Plone-developers mailing list plone-develop...@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
On 12/18/08 11:43 AM, Tom Lazar wrote: and therefore should be reflected in the membership of the group which makes decisions based on those factors. i think that conclusion is the only part where we disagree. can we agree at least on that? ;-) Not without a way to guarantee that user interface will be a full part of the process, which incudes the guarantee that everything will go through a proper user interface review done by people with the right skillset, and can be rejected even if just the user interface is not up to par. Wichert. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Members of the Framework Team, and processes of teams/communities
On 18 Dec 2008, at 10:34, Wichert Akkerman wrote: things like user interface and documentation should be a full part of the process +1 and therefore should be reflected in the membership of the group which makes decisions based on those factors. Concerning that equation, I'm less sure. Certainly, it would be nice to see a '100% balanced' Team membership, but the overt expression of expertise in technical/development (more than in design of UI) does not reduce my expectation that * the members of the Framework Team can achieve results that are pleasing, within * the process of the Team and within * the processes of the broader Plone communities. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Framework Team: operation, consultation, focus, discussions, proceedings
On 18 Dec 2008, at 10:39, Tom Lazar wrote: a fundamental change in how the framework team will operate from now on. we're no longer just a group of individuals who quietly need to make some sense of PLIPs and their implementation on their own OK but more of a clearing house. From the outside looking in, without referring to written definitions (bite me!) the 'clearing house' impression is already gained from recent work of the existing Team. i can't imagine that any PLIP will be approved or denied without the evaluating fwt members having consulted with at least one of the 'usual UI suspects' beforehand. +1 relieved from the 'leg work' and can focus on UI issues without having to follow all of the fwt discussions and proceedings. Sounds good. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Fwd: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
On 18 Dec 2008, at 10:34, Wichert Akkerman wrote: Collecting external input and outside reviews is a nice idea, but things like user interface and documentation should be a full part of the process, and therefore should be reflected in the membership of the group which makes decisions based on those factors. I think I'll answer this, as in my initial mail nominating myself you asked about my UI experience: On 5 Nov 2008, at 12:54, Matthew Wilkes wrote: - loves to make sure a user interface is as simple as possible Less so, I'm a terminal junkie. I know what I hate, as it were, for example adding a new user with the manager role in PAS is dire, but I'm more interested in ensuring integrators can easily customise a UI than perfecting the OOTB one. As long as it's usable it's enough for me. Although UI isn't my number one concern, I certainly don't plan on ignoring it. It's our job to do a rounded evaluation of the PLIPs, we'd be negligent if we ignored UI. That doesn't mean we need to be UI experts personally. As you say, there are plenty of people in the community for us to consult, and I know people in real life. My code has to go through usability testing, I don't see why I should put my name to anything that doesn't meet the standards I'm held to. Matt ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
Previously Tom Lazar wrote: this is a fundamental change in how the framework team will operate from now on. we're no longer just a group of individuals who quietly need to make some sense of PLIPs and their implementation on their own but more of a clearing house. So, do I understand correctly that the group of people that selected the framework team (which does not include those selected people itself) has also gone one step further and defined a whole new process for how that team will work? Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netIt is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Plone-developers] [Framework-Team] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Tom Lazar wrote: this is a fundamental change in how the framework team will operate from now on. we're no longer just a group of individuals who quietly need to make some sense of PLIPs and their implementation on their own but more of a clearing house. So, do I understand correctly that the group of people that selected the framework team (which does not include those selected people itself) has also gone one step further and defined a whole new process for how that team will work? As one of the responsible ones for that decision I'll add my view as well. I think we all share Wichert's concerns that UI needs to get more attention - and so does documentation. As has been pointed out already there is an expectation that the way in which the framework team is going to work might change (and I stress this is an expectation by some at this point - no clear cut decisions yet. And yes, that can be criticized.). Rather than having team members with different domains of expertise taking care of different aspects of PLIPs it has been suggested that framework team members act more like editors of a scientific journal meaning they can decide on acceptance if they feel comfortable with the decision but they usually ask for advice from respected players in the field. This can take any form in principle. Here, my expectation is that team members may choose to bring up whatever they think needs to be considered - either on the dev list or by actively approaching someone they trust. They take the responsibility for the decision they make but they don't necessarily do the work of reviewing and evaluating everything themselves. It is still not an easy task as people can fail to address the right issues in the first place but I do have a strong trust in the appointed team that they will do their best also when it comes to UI evaluations and improvements as well as to documentation matters. Sure enough we don't know yet whether this will work as expected but at least I do see a chance that this could even be better than having one or two (usually very busy) UI experts on the team who are expected to look at each and every PLIP with respect to UI issues. Just my 2 cents, Raphael Wichert. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] PLIP evaluation and structure, and Framework Team transparency
On 18 Dec 2008, at 11:13, Tom Lazar wrote: in the end it comes down to how much we all care about plone (about which there can be no doubt regarding the new team) and the collective wisdom of the entire(!) community (which is completely independent from the fwt composition). +1 but perhaps we could make the 'UI impact component' a formal part of the evaluation of a PLIP, i.e. add it as a formal part of the structure of a PLIP (in addition to the current ones such as Deliverables, Participants etc.) Recently, it was proper for voting or whatever to be held in private. Now, IMHO it's sufficient for Team members discuss/decide, publicly, how best to make the PLIP routine work *for them* -- and for the community. [√] The discussion is occurring. [√] People who are not members of the Team are permitted to address the list. [√] The level of publicity is currently sufficient; addressing plone-develop...@lists.sourceforge.n et causes the discussion to appear at http://plone.org/support/forums. [x] The level of publicity is not always what it should be; http://plone.org/support/lists and http://plone.org/support/forums omit http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team To address the latter, http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/framework-team/2008-November/002430.html : Framework Team transparency ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
Tom Lazar li...@tomster.org writes: On 18.12.2008, at 11:48, Wichert Akkerman wrote: On 12/18/08 11:43 AM, Tom Lazar wrote: and therefore should be reflected in the membership of the group which makes decisions based on those factors. i think that conclusion is the only part where we disagree. can we agree at least on that? ;-) Not without a way to guarantee that user interface will be a full part of the process, which incudes the guarantee that everything will go through a proper user interface review done by people with the right skillset, and can be rejected even if just the user interface is not up to par. ... but perhaps we could make the 'UI impact component' a formal part of the evaluation of a PLIP, i.e. add it as a formal part of the structure of a PLIP (in addition to the current ones such as Deliverables, Participants etc.) that way the issue could never be missed (i imagine that many UI flaws come into existence because technical people didn't realize there *was* a UI perspective to the given issue). Also, it would make it easy to get an overview of the UI impact of all of the submitted PLIPs by simply focussing on those parts of the PLIPs. anybody care to add their $0.02? It seems clear that everyone agrees that UI concerns need to be included in the review process. There doesn't seem to be agreement on retracting the FWT selection. For my money, I think any sort of retraction or re-openning of the process would be a mistake. I also think that simply saying Don't worry, we'll consider UI could be inadequate to ensure UI is considered sufficiently. It is most certainly inadequate to redress the concerns of those who raise the complaint and agree with it. So I think it makes a lot of sense to find an alternate way to formalize the inclusion of UI concerns into the review process. As such I'm +1 on formalizing the 'UI impact component' part of the PLIP process. More specifically I think we should require that every PLIP have a UI expert weigh in on the estimation of UI considerations and if a PLIP has UI considerations then we should require that a UI expert fully reviews those UI impacts. Ross ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Framework Team: ways of working: possibility of change
On 18 Dec 2008, at 13:40, Helge Tesdal wrote: UI team: The team dealing with User Interfaces, Accessibility, XHTML, CSS and ECMA/Javascript. Framework team: Responsible for feature evaluation and general guidance on architectural decisions. The Framework Team reviews and suggests features for inclusion in releases. My initial reaction to the quotes from Helge: I recalled some past indication that for the Framework Team, things may be subject to change. Raphael saved me the trouble of searching the list :) On 18 Dec 2008, at 14:22, Raphael Ritz wrote: an expectation that the way in which the framework team is going to work might change (and I stress this is an expectation by some at this point - no clear cut decisions yet. And yes, that can be criticized.). No criticism from me. To know that change may occur is sufficient. Rather than having team members with different domains of expertise taking care of different aspects of PLIPs it has been suggested that framework team members act more like editors of a scientific journal meaning they can decide on acceptance if they feel comfortable with the decision but they usually ask for advice from respected players in the field. This can take any form in principle. Here, my expectation is that team members may choose to bring up whatever they think needs to be considered - either on the dev list or by actively approaching someone they trust. They take the responsibility for the decision they make but they don't necessarily do the work of reviewing and evaluating everything themselves. It is still not an easy task as people can fail to address the right issues in the first place but I do have a strong trust in the appointed team that they will do their best I share that trust. also when it comes to UI evaluations I share that trust. and improvements as well as to documentation matters. My gut feeling is that *documentation* may be, occasionally, a thorny issue. Thorny within or without a PLIP context. (I am neither criticising the past/present, nor predicting a future failure. Simply being realistic about the very different paces at which code and documentation change.) I do not propose that Framework Team membership be reviewed with an additional focus on documentation. It's enough that the relevant teams are in communication with each other. Sure enough we don't know yet whether this will work as expected but at least I do see a chance that this could even be better than having one or two (usually very busy) UI experts on the team who are expected to look at each and every PLIP with respect to UI issues. Sharing the load, whether formally (in a Team structure or Team process) or informally (as we are doing now) strikes me as a fine approach. Members do demonstrate a good sense of whether Plone timelines fit with their personal workloads, and do speak up when things become unrealistic. ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
[Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
Ross Patterson m...@rpatterson.net writes: Tom Lazar li...@tomster.org writes: On 18.12.2008, at 11:48, Wichert Akkerman wrote: On 12/18/08 11:43 AM, Tom Lazar wrote: and therefore should be reflected in the membership of the group which makes decisions based on those factors. i think that conclusion is the only part where we disagree. can we agree at least on that? ;-) Not without a way to guarantee that user interface will be a full part of the process, which incudes the guarantee that everything will go through a proper user interface review done by people with the right skillset, and can be rejected even if just the user interface is not up to par. ... but perhaps we could make the 'UI impact component' a formal part of the evaluation of a PLIP, i.e. add it as a formal part of the structure of a PLIP (in addition to the current ones such as Deliverables, Participants etc.) that way the issue could never be missed (i imagine that many UI flaws come into existence because technical people didn't realize there *was* a UI perspective to the given issue). Also, it would make it easy to get an overview of the UI impact of all of the submitted PLIPs by simply focussing on those parts of the PLIPs. anybody care to add their $0.02? It seems clear that everyone agrees that UI concerns need to be included in the review process. There doesn't seem to be agreement on retracting the FWT selection. For my money, I think any sort of retraction or re-openning of the process would be a mistake. I also think that simply saying Don't worry, we'll consider UI could be inadequate to ensure UI is considered sufficiently. It is most certainly inadequate to redress the concerns of those who raise the complaint and agree with it. So I think it makes a lot of sense to find an alternate way to formalize the inclusion of UI concerns into the review process. As such I'm +1 on formalizing the 'UI impact component' part of the PLIP process. More specifically I think we should require that every PLIP have a UI expert weigh in on the estimation of UI considerations and if a PLIP has UI considerations then we should require that a UI expert fully reviews those UI impacts. Oh, BTW, I'm +10 for doing the same for Documentation. Ross ___ Framework-Team mailing list Framework-Team@lists.plone.org http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
Re: [Framework-Team] Re: [Plone-developers] Re: Plone 4 Framework Team Selection List
On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Ross Patterson wrote: So I think it makes a lot of sense to find an alternate way to formalize the inclusion of UI concerns into the review process. As such I'm +1 on formalizing the 'UI impact component' part of the PLIP process. +1, i completely agree with ross here. also, and quite frankly, i don't really see the problem: we talked about changing the fwt process to allow externals reviewers, and we agreed (iirc). we also talked about extending the PLIP process to consider and put more emphasize on UI and documentation issues. we also agreed here. putting these two together makes it not necessary for an explicit UI experts to be part of the fwt anymore. so while i agree that the new team is more technically oriented the specific individual skillsets involved don't really matter that much. imho, it's primarily more about dedication (or should we say a passing for plone? :)) and the will to put in enough time and energy. of course, technical skills will greatly help when reviewing code — and i expect there will be quite a lot of it to review — but that's another story... anyhow, i think the only thing that's missing is that we go ahead and decided on the new processes and document them. once the PLIP process is refined UI issues (to stick with the original critique) must be considered, and if the necessary skills are not sufficient amongst the team, well, then some external reviewers need to be found to do the job... the same might be true for technical and other issues as well. cheers, 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 3.1.7 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
