Matt Hamilton wrote:
> On 6 May 2009, at 01:44, Ross Patterson wrote:
>> These kind of messages are not largely or exclusively technically,
>> marketing, or user oriented. They require a cohesion of all concerns.
>>
>> Maybe I'm trying to be structural about something that shouldn't be
>> addresse
We need to move the Plone 2009 proposal forward (whether it's 3.5 or 4.0).
I'd like to suggest that the combined Plone 3 and 4 framework teams
make the decisions on this.
It looks like me that you have a couple of sets of decisions to make:
1) Should there be a significant new feature release of
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 17:15, Steve McMahon wrote:
> 1) Should there be a significant new feature release of Plone this
> year? What are its most basic goals? Which framework team is in
> charge?
Hanno already outlined the goals, I'd say go with those.
I'd nominate the incumbent 3.x team for thi