Re: PRD Update

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
32 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Darin Fisher
Mike Connor wrote:

> Ben Goodger wrote:
>> FWIW, all this confusion is classic example of why doing this sort of
>> thing privately = bad idea.
>>  
> There are currently 324 people subscribed to [hidden email], so I
> don't think I'd call this list "private" any more.  I'm entirely
> unsure of how to separate this list and d-a-f/d-p in a clear way, but
> I think there's a clear bias towards using this list for Firefox
> policy and team-style discussions, and dev-apps-firefox for open
> design discussions. dev-planning seems to be more about planning
> discussions on a mozilla.org level.  (There's also the meeting
> reminder/status updates usage, which is why its the only one of the
> three that goes to my blackberry!)
>
> -- Mike

It's true that a lot of people are subscribed, and it's true that anyone
could subscribe, but just take a look at the comments made by Robert
Accettura on Ben's blog:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009924.html#comments

I think we discussed eliminating the bonecho mailing list in favor of
dev-planning on the big m.d.general thread.  Beltzner wrote:

 "Perhaps we should close bonecho@ and move that discussion into
dev.planning, though. I'd be fine with that."

[See:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/178363131d7c1f47?hl=en]

I'm in favor of fewer communication channels.  What say we about
eliminating bonecho@ in favor of just using dev-planning?  CC'ing
dev-planning with follow-up to dev-planning ;-)

-Darin
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Ben Goodger-2
(wrong list)

On 3/23/06, Ben Goodger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3/23/06, Mike Connor <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Monday will be a travel day for a lot of people, and tomorrow's short
> > notice.  We could expand the Tuesday Bon Echo meeting, we have two hours
> > blocked off out of the MoCo meeting schedule, and nearly everyone listed
> > as implementation owners (except, I believe, Steven Garrity) will be
> > able to sit around the table and hash this out.
>
> What about those people who can't be there? Are all the key
> stakeholders coming? I'm not opposed to f2f meetings for this sort of
> thing, but the fidelity of reporting back to the list upon completion
> needs to be very good, and there needs to be an opportunity for
> off-site people to give feedback.
>
> -Ben
>
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Ben Goodger-2
In reply to this post by Darin Fisher
Darin Fisher wrote:

> It's true that a lot of people are subscribed, and it's true that anyone
> could subscribe, but just take a look at the comments made by Robert
> Accettura on Ben's blog:
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009924.html#comments
>
> I think we discussed eliminating the bonecho mailing list in favor of
> dev-planning on the big m.d.general thread.  Beltzner wrote:
>
>  "Perhaps we should close bonecho@ and move that discussion into
> dev.planning, though. I'd be fine with that."
>
> [See:
> http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/178363131d7c1f47?hl=en]
>
> I'm in favor of fewer communication channels.  What say we about
> eliminating bonecho@ in favor of just using dev-planning?  CC'ing
> dev-planning with follow-up to dev-planning ;-)

Yes, lets. I'll be replying exclusively to dev-planning after this email.

-Ben
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Mike Beltzner
In reply to this post by Darin Fisher
Ben, your approach seems flawed. Now to continue to get your comments, I need to subscribe to another list, and need to have been attending to this thread, and will be misled by our other heavily publicized links.

Do we have to do this right now as opposed to a planned migration with announcements and an effort to automatically migrate the subscriber lists?

I'm not opposed to this change, but let's make it a smooth transition. Also, I've stated a cocnern that I haven't yet seen a good answer to, which is that dev.planning seems very broad, and I'd prefer that we create dev.planning.firefox2 or something.

cheers,
mike
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ben Goodger" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:41:52
To:"Darin Fisher" <[hidden email]>
Cc:[hidden email], [hidden email]
Subject: Re: PRD Update

Yes, lets. I'll be replying exclusively to dev-planning after this email.

-Ben

On 3/23/06, Darin Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Mike Connor wrote:
> > Ben Goodger wrote:
> >> FWIW, all this confusion is classic example of why doing this sort of
> >> thing privately = bad idea.
> >>
> > There are currently 324 people subscribed to [hidden email], so I
> > don't think I'd call this list "private" any more.  I'm entirely
> > unsure of how to separate this list and d-a-f/d-p in a clear way, but
> > I think there's a clear bias towards using this list for Firefox
> > policy and team-style discussions, and dev-apps-firefox for open
> > design discussions. dev-planning seems to be more about planning
> > discussions on a mozilla.org level.  (There's also the meeting
> > reminder/status updates usage, which is why its the only one of the
> > three that goes to my blackberry!)
> >
> > -- Mike
>
> It's true that a lot of people are subscribed, and it's true that anyone
> could subscribe, but just take a look at the comments made by Robert
> Accettura on Ben's blog:
> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009924.html#comments
>
> I think we discussed eliminating the bonecho mailing list in favor of
> dev-planning on the big m.d.general thread.  Beltzner wrote:
>
>  "Perhaps we should close bonecho@ and move that discussion into
> dev.planning, though. I'd be fine with that."
>
> [See:
> http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/178363131d7c1f47?hl=en]
>
> I'm in favor of fewer communication channels.  What say we about
> eliminating bonecho@ in favor of just using dev-planning?  CC'ing
> dev-planning with follow-up to dev-planning ;-)
>
> -Darin
> _______________________________________________
> BonEcho mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/bonecho
>
_______________________________________________
BonEcho mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/bonecho

_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Ben Goodger-2
We are having a pretty significant discussion about the direction of
the project. Key stakeholders should have the opportunity to be
involved in this now, not later, after "decisions" are made and
everything is locked down.

Let's let dev.planning's "broadness" become a problem before we
pre-optimize for it. Currently the list is not used much, and volume
is low.

-Ben

On 3/23/06, Mike Beltzner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Ben, your approach seems flawed. Now to continue to get your comments, I need to subscribe to another list, and need to have been attending to this thread, and will be misled by our other heavily publicized links.
>
> Do we have to do this right now as opposed to a planned migration with announcements and an effort to automatically migrate the subscriber lists?
>
> I'm not opposed to this change, but let's make it a smooth transition. Also, I've stated a cocnern that I haven't yet seen a good answer to, which is that dev.planning seems very broad, and I'd prefer that we create dev.planning.firefox2 or something.
>
> cheers,
> mike
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Darin Fisher
In reply to this post by Darin Fisher
[re-sending this email since [hidden email] was previously not
subscribed to dev-planning@ ... maybe trying to switch to gmail for the
mailing lists was not such a good idea afterall! ;-)]


Mike Connor wrote:

> Ben Goodger wrote:
>> FWIW, all this confusion is classic example of why doing this sort of
>> thing privately = bad idea.
>>  
> There are currently 324 people subscribed to [hidden email], so I
> don't think I'd call this list "private" any more.  I'm entirely
> unsure of how to separate this list and d-a-f/d-p in a clear way, but
> I think there's a clear bias towards using this list for Firefox
> policy and team-style discussions, and dev-apps-firefox for open
> design discussions. dev-planning seems to be more about planning
> discussions on a mozilla.org level.  (There's also the meeting
> reminder/status updates usage, which is why its the only one of the
> three that goes to my blackberry!)
>
> -- Mike

It's true that a lot of people are subscribed, and it's true that anyone
could subscribe, but just take a look at the comments made by Robert
Accettura on Ben's blog:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009924.html#comments

I think we discussed eliminating the bonecho mailing list in favor of
dev-planning on the big m.d.general thread.  Beltzner wrote:

"Perhaps we should close bonecho@ and move that discussion into
dev.planning, though. I'd be fine with that."

[See:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/178363131d7c1f47?hl=en]


I'm in favor of fewer communication channels.  What say we about
eliminating bonecho@ in favor of just using dev-planning?  CC'ing
dev-planning with follow-up to dev-planning ;-)

-Darin
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Benjamin Smedberg
In reply to this post by Mike Beltzner
Mike Beltzner wrote:
> Ben, your approach seems flawed. Now to continue to get your comments, I need to subscribe to another list, and need to have been attending to this thread, and will be misled by our other heavily publicized links.

Anyone here really ought to be on mozilla.dev.planning anyway... we can't do
Firefox planning divorced from whatever else is going on.

> I'm not opposed to this change, but let's make it a smooth transition. Also, I've stated a cocnern that I haven't yet seen a good answer to, which is that dev.planning seems very broad, and I'd prefer that we create dev.planning.firefox2 or something.

I don't think that we ought to have a separate newsgroup for each release.
If we really can't keep track of the traffic in mozilla.dev.planning, the at
most we should segregate all the Firefox planning into
mozilla.dev.planning.firefox.

--BDS
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Benjamin Smedberg
In reply to this post by Mike Beltzner
Mike Beltzner wrote:
> Ben, your approach seems flawed. Now to continue to get your comments, I need to subscribe to another list, and need to have been attending to this thread, and will be misled by our other heavily publicized links.

Anyone here really ought to be on mozilla.dev.planning anyway... we can't do
Firefox planning divorced from whatever else is going on.

> I'm not opposed to this change, but let's make it a smooth transition. Also, I've stated a cocnern that I haven't yet seen a good answer to, which is that dev.planning seems very broad, and I'd prefer that we create dev.planning.firefox2 or something.

I don't think that we ought to have a separate newsgroup for each release.
If we really can't keep track of the traffic in mozilla.dev.planning, the at
most we should segregate all the Firefox planning into
mozilla.dev.planning.firefox.

--BDS
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Benjamin Smedberg
In reply to this post by Mike Beltzner
Mike Beltzner wrote:
> Ben, your approach seems flawed. Now to continue to get your comments, I need to subscribe to another list, and need to have been attending to this thread, and will be misled by our other heavily publicized links.

Anyone here really ought to be on mozilla.dev.planning anyway... we can't do
Firefox planning divorced from whatever else is going on.

> I'm not opposed to this change, but let's make it a smooth transition. Also, I've stated a cocnern that I haven't yet seen a good answer to, which is that dev.planning seems very broad, and I'd prefer that we create dev.planning.firefox2 or something.

I don't think that we ought to have a separate newsgroup for each release.
If we really can't keep track of the traffic in mozilla.dev.planning, the at
most we should segregate all the Firefox planning into
mozilla.dev.planning.firefox.

--BDS
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

L. David Baron
In reply to this post by Darin Fisher
On Thursday 2006-03-23 10:14 -0800, Darin Fisher wrote:

> I think we discussed eliminating the bonecho mailing list in favor of
> dev-planning on the big m.d.general thread.  Beltzner wrote:
>
> "Perhaps we should close bonecho@ and move that discussion into
> dev.planning, though. I'd be fine with that."
>
> [See:
> http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/178363131d7c1f47?hl=en]
>
>
> I'm in favor of fewer communication channels.  What say we about
> eliminating bonecho@ in favor of just using dev-planning?  CC'ing
> dev-planning with follow-up to dev-planning ;-)
I'd be wary of suggesting that everything that was on bonecho (although
I don't completely know what that was) should be on dev-planning.  I'd
say stuff that is relevant to the entire project, involving schedules,
and maybe announcements of more detailed plans, does belong on
dev-planning.  A 50-message-long discussion of the search box dropdown
should be on dev-apps-firefox instead.

I'm not entirely sure where the line in the middle is, but it should be
somewhere such that people who aren't interested in the details of
Firefox but do care about its scheduling and general plans (I'm thinking
primarily of developers who work on things other than Firefox) don't
unsubscribe from dev-planning because they're tired of wading through
lots of Firefox stuff.

FWIW, my initial suggestion for reducing communication channels would
have been to move bonecho onto dev-apps-firefox, not dev-planning.

-David

--
L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
           Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation

_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning

attachment0 (198 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Darin Fisher-2
The suggestion to keep Firefox technical issues on d.t.a.firefox seems
right on to me.

-Darin



On 3/23/06, L. David Baron <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thursday 2006-03-23 10:14 -0800, Darin Fisher wrote:
> > I think we discussed eliminating the bonecho mailing list in favor of
> > dev-planning on the big m.d.general thread.  Beltzner wrote:
> >
> > "Perhaps we should close bonecho@ and move that discussion into
> > dev.planning, though. I'd be fine with that."
> >
> > [See:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/178363131d7c1f47?hl=en]
> >
> >
> > I'm in favor of fewer communication channels.  What say we about
> > eliminating bonecho@ in favor of just using dev-planning?  CC'ing
> > dev-planning with follow-up to dev-planning ;-)
>
> I'd be wary of suggesting that everything that was on bonecho (although
> I don't completely know what that was) should be on dev-planning.  I'd
> say stuff that is relevant to the entire project, involving schedules,
> and maybe announcements of more detailed plans, does belong on
> dev-planning.  A 50-message-long discussion of the search box dropdown
> should be on dev-apps-firefox instead.
>
> I'm not entirely sure where the line in the middle is, but it should be
> somewhere such that people who aren't interested in the details of
> Firefox but do care about its scheduling and general plans (I'm thinking
> primarily of developers who work on things other than Firefox) don't
> unsubscribe from dev-planning because they're tired of wading through
> lots of Firefox stuff.
>
> FWIW, my initial suggestion for reducing communication channels would
> have been to move bonecho onto dev-apps-firefox, not dev-planning.
>
> -David
>
> --
> L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
>            Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Darin Fisher-2
Er, dev-apps-firefox ;)


On 3/23/06, Darin Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The suggestion to keep Firefox technical issues on d.t.a.firefox seems
> right on to me.
>
> -Darin
>
>
>
> On 3/23/06, L. David Baron <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 2006-03-23 10:14 -0800, Darin Fisher wrote:
> > > I think we discussed eliminating the bonecho mailing list in favor of
> > > dev-planning on the big m.d.general thread.  Beltzner wrote:
> > >
> > > "Perhaps we should close bonecho@ and move that discussion into
> > > dev.planning, though. I'd be fine with that."
> > >
> > > [See:
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/178363131d7c1f47?hl=en]
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm in favor of fewer communication channels.  What say we about
> > > eliminating bonecho@ in favor of just using dev-planning?  CC'ing
> > > dev-planning with follow-up to dev-planning ;-)
> >
> > I'd be wary of suggesting that everything that was on bonecho (although
> > I don't completely know what that was) should be on dev-planning.  I'd
> > say stuff that is relevant to the entire project, involving schedules,
> > and maybe announcements of more detailed plans, does belong on
> > dev-planning.  A 50-message-long discussion of the search box dropdown
> > should be on dev-apps-firefox instead.
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure where the line in the middle is, but it should be
> > somewhere such that people who aren't interested in the details of
> > Firefox but do care about its scheduling and general plans (I'm thinking
> > primarily of developers who work on things other than Firefox) don't
> > unsubscribe from dev-planning because they're tired of wading through
> > lots of Firefox stuff.
> >
> > FWIW, my initial suggestion for reducing communication channels would
> > have been to move bonecho onto dev-apps-firefox, not dev-planning.
> >
> > -David
> >
> > --
> > L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
> >            Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev-planning mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Location of Firefox Planning Discussion

Ben Goodger
In reply to this post by Darin Fisher
L. David Baron wrote:
> I'd be wary of suggesting that everything that was on bonecho (although
> I don't completely know what that was) should be on dev-planning.  I'd
> say stuff that is relevant to the entire project, involving schedules,
> and maybe announcements of more detailed plans, does belong on
> dev-planning.  A 50-message-long discussion of the search box dropdown
> should be on dev-apps-firefox instead.

Yes.

> FWIW, my initial suggestion for reducing communication channels would
> have been to move bonecho onto dev-apps-firefox, not dev-planning.

OK. I just noted that others (roc) had indicated a desire to use
dev-planning for gecko planning purposes in previous threads, so I
figured firefox was fair game too. People on projects like Gecko often
wonder what the priorities of the "embedding" apps are and release
schedules are like, so having them live together seemed like a good idea.

-Ben
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Location of Firefox Planning Discussion

Ben Goodger
Ben Goodger wrote:
> OK. I just noted that others (roc) had indicated a desire to use
> dev-planning for gecko planning purposes in previous threads, so I
> figured firefox was fair game too. People on projects like Gecko often
> wonder what the priorities of the "embedding" apps are and release
> schedules are like, so having them live together seemed like a good idea.

Furthermore, some of the things on the Firefox PRD linked above imply
Gecko work. Do Gecko contributors generally subscribe to d-a-f? If not,
would they like to be more involved with the Gecko changes that
individual apps like Firefox would like for specific releases? I would
think yes. Do you want to be notified about every technical discussion
in the Firefox FE? Maybe not.

-Ben
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Location of Firefox Planning Discussion

Benjamin Smedberg
In reply to this post by Ben Goodger
Ben Goodger wrote:

>> FWIW, my initial suggestion for reducing communication channels would
>> have been to move bonecho onto dev-apps-firefox, not dev-planning.
>
> OK. I just noted that others (roc) had indicated a desire to use
> dev-planning for gecko planning purposes in previous threads, so I
> figured firefox was fair game too. People on projects like Gecko often
> wonder what the priorities of the "embedding" apps are and release
> schedules are like, so having them live together seemed like a good idea.

I think that we should be using dev.planning for platform and firefox
planning (schedules, announcements of PRD, whatnot). Detailed gecko
discussion can occur in dev.platform just as detailed Firefox discussion
should occur in dev.apps.firefox

--BDS
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: PRD Update

Michael Schroepfer
In reply to this post by Darin Fisher
Bonecho is publicized on the wiki, has open subscriptions, and has archives
of mails available here (archives here:
http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/bonecho/).  

If you'd like to move discussion to the newsgroup because threading works
better, it's easier to look in one place, etc. that makes perfect sense.
Doing so under the banner of "openness" is a misnomer.  I'm fine with using
either - I'm just scratching my head trying to understand clearly how a
public newsgroup is more "open" than a public mailing list.  I'll post to
both for now.

I'd like to bring the discussion back to the critical element - which is
getting agreement on the focus and priorities for this release.   Whatever
format the document takes, whatever we call it, all I care about is that we
have as crisp as possible an agreement between the major stakeholders as to
what we are trying to accomplish.  When we ship FF2 we all want to be proud
of our work and have a competitive product.

In particular, this becomes critical as we do resource planning.  If feature
X is in trouble, do we cut it or extend the schedule?  If someone finishes
up their work early - what would be a recommended feature to jump into, etc?

So I'd suggest that we start the discussion at the feature level here and
review anything we can't resolve at the next BonEcho status meeting.   Let's
hash out:
        a) Are there features which should be on the list which are not?
        b) Are there features on the list we don't understand and/or should
cut?
        c) Should we change the relative priorities of anything?
        d) Do we agree with the vision?
        e) Do we agree with the Release Criteria?

I'd love to dive into detailed discussions on each of these.  I'll add my
thoughts to the above questions in a separate mail/post.

Best,

Schrep



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Mike Beltzner
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:38 AM
To: Ben Goodger; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: PRD Update

Yes, I agree. That's why I think you only posting to dev.planning is a bad
idea. Can I convince you to continue cross-posting until we can migrate
bonecho@ properly? Let's not throw out the baby with bath water.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ben Goodger" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:07:31
To:"Mike Beltzner" <[hidden email]>
Cc:[hidden email], "Darin Fisher" <[hidden email]>,
[hidden email], [hidden email]
Subject: Re: PRD Update

We are having a pretty significant discussion about the direction of
the project. Key stakeholders should have the opportunity to be
involved in this now, not later, after "decisions" are made and
everything is locked down.

Let's let dev.planning's "broadness" become a problem before we
pre-optimize for it. Currently the list is not used much, and volume
is low.

-Ben

On 3/23/06, Mike Beltzner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Ben, your approach seems flawed. Now to continue to get your comments, I
need to subscribe to another list, and need to have been attending to this
thread, and will be misled by our other heavily publicized links.
>
> Do we have to do this right now as opposed to a planned migration with
announcements and an effort to automatically migrate the subscriber lists?
>
> I'm not opposed to this change, but let's make it a smooth transition.
Also, I've stated a cocnern that I haven't yet seen a good answer to, which
is that dev.planning seems very broad, and I'd prefer that we create
dev.planning.firefox2 or something.

>
> cheers,
> mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Ben Goodger" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:41:52
> To:"Darin Fisher" <[hidden email]>
> Cc:[hidden email], [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: PRD Update
>
> Yes, lets. I'll be replying exclusively to dev-planning after this email.
>
> -Ben
>
> On 3/23/06, Darin Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Mike Connor wrote:
> > > Ben Goodger wrote:
> > >> FWIW, all this confusion is classic example of why doing this sort of
> > >> thing privately = bad idea.
> > >>
> > > There are currently 324 people subscribed to [hidden email], so I
> > > don't think I'd call this list "private" any more.  I'm entirely
> > > unsure of how to separate this list and d-a-f/d-p in a clear way, but
> > > I think there's a clear bias towards using this list for Firefox
> > > policy and team-style discussions, and dev-apps-firefox for open
> > > design discussions. dev-planning seems to be more about planning
> > > discussions on a mozilla.org level.  (There's also the meeting
> > > reminder/status updates usage, which is why its the only one of the
> > > three that goes to my blackberry!)
> > >
> > > -- Mike
> >
> > It's true that a lot of people are subscribed, and it's true that anyone
> > could subscribe, but just take a look at the comments made by Robert
> > Accettura on Ben's blog:
> > http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009924.html#comments
> >
> > I think we discussed eliminating the bonecho mailing list in favor of
> > dev-planning on the big m.d.general thread.  Beltzner wrote:
> >
> >  "Perhaps we should close bonecho@ and move that discussion into
> > dev.planning, though. I'd be fine with that."
> >
> > [See:
> >
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/178363131d7c1f47?hl=
en]

> >
> > I'm in favor of fewer communication channels.  What say we about
> > eliminating bonecho@ in favor of just using dev-planning?  CC'ing
> > dev-planning with follow-up to dev-planning ;-)
> >
> > -Darin
> > _______________________________________________
> > BonEcho mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/bonecho
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> BonEcho mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/bonecho
>


_______________________________________________
BonEcho mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/bonecho

_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

schrep-2
In reply to this post by Darin Fisher-2
(Posting directly since I my email is queued up to dev-planning@ :-()

Bonecho is publicized on the wiki, has open subscriptions, and has
archives of mails available here (archives here:
http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/bonecho/).

If you'd like to move discussion to the newsgroup because threading
works better, it's easier to look in one place, etc. that makes perfect
sense.  Doing so under the banner of "openness" is a misnomer.  I'm fine
with using either - I'm just scratching my head trying to understand
clearly how a public newsgroup is more "open" than a public mailing
list.  I'll post to both for now.

I'd like to bring the discussion back to the critical element - which is
getting agreement on the focus and priorities for this release.
Whatever format the document takes, whatever we call it, all I care
about is that we have as crisp as possible an agreement between the
major stakeholders as to what we are trying to accomplish.  When we ship
FF2 we all want to be proud of our work and have a competitive product.

In particular, this becomes critical as we do resource planning.  If
feature X is in trouble, do we cut it or extend the schedule?  If
someone finishes up their work early - what would be a recommended
feature to jump into, etc?

So I'd suggest that we start the discussion at the feature level here
and review anything we can't resolve at the next BonEcho status meeting.
   Let's hash out:
        a) Are there features which should be on the list which are not?
        b) Are there features on the list we don't understand and/or should cut?
        c) Should we change the relative priorities of anything?
        d) Do we agree with the vision?
        e) Do we agree with the Release Criteria?

I'd love to dive into detailed discussions on each of these.  I'll add
my thoughts to the above questions in a separate mail/post.

Best,

Schrep
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: PRD Update

Ben Goodger-2
In reply to this post by Michael Schroepfer
On 3/23/06, Michael Schroepfer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Bonecho is publicized on the wiki, has open subscriptions, and has archives
> of mails available here (archives here:
> http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/bonecho/).
>
> If you'd like to move discussion to the newsgroup because threading works
> better, it's easier to look in one place, etc. that makes perfect sense.
> Doing so under the banner of "openness" is a misnomer.  I'm fine with using
> either - I'm just scratching my head trying to understand clearly how a
> public newsgroup is more "open" than a public mailing list.  I'll post to
> both for now.

It is related to openness. It's about having a consolidated place for
discussions about our work. The point was that having discussions in
very many public places is sort of like having private discussions,
from a user's point of view, because it's difficult for people to know
the one place to subscribe to to get updates and for everyone (even
those folks who aren't key stakeholders on the firefox2 plan right
now) see where projects are going and be able to contribute.

I agree we need to get people bought into the _content_ of the PRD. So
let's restart the discussion in dev planning and end this thread.

-Ben
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Location of Firefox Planning Discussion

Ben Goodger
In reply to this post by Benjamin Smedberg
Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> I think that we should be using dev.planning for platform and firefox
> planning (schedules, announcements of PRD, whatnot). Detailed gecko
> discussion can occur in dev.platform just as detailed Firefox discussion
> should occur in dev.apps.firefox

Sounds fine to me.

-Ben
_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Location of Firefox Planning Discussion

Scott MacGregor
In reply to this post by Benjamin Smedberg
Benjamin Smedberg wrote:

> Ben Goodger wrote:
>
>>> FWIW, my initial suggestion for reducing communication channels would
>>> have been to move bonecho onto dev-apps-firefox, not dev-planning.
>>
>> OK. I just noted that others (roc) had indicated a desire to use
>> dev-planning for gecko planning purposes in previous threads, so I
>> figured firefox was fair game too. People on projects like Gecko often
>> wonder what the priorities of the "embedding" apps are and release
>> schedules are like, so having them live together seemed like a good idea.
>
> I think that we should be using dev.planning for platform and firefox
> planning (schedules, announcements of PRD, whatnot). Detailed gecko
> discussion can occur in dev.platform just as detailed Firefox discussion
> should occur in dev.apps.firefox
>

I agree that both should happen here in dev.planning. The Firefox
schedule / plan also dictates tree rules and branch strategies which in
turn influence other mozilla projects (Camino, Seamonkey, Thunderbird,
etc). Keeping the planning information for Gecko and Firefox here in one
place makes it easier for the other project to coordinate their
timelines and branch plans.

-Scott

_______________________________________________
dev-planning mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
12