[TYPO3-ect] Improving communication between ECT and Core team (was: Re: Re: [TYPO3-core] Wishlist from ECT)

[Ernesto Baschny [cron IT]]

Michael Stucki wrote: on 02.04.2007 11:34:

> Did anybody ever read this? No other opinions, or pure enthusiasm?

Hehe, I think that particular matter has settled already (about
typo3/contrib). See my mail in the thread from 12.2 16h42 and Elmars
response at 20h14.

I have always been active here in ECT and I think that if 2 or 3 core
developers do that, the communication flow can easily be coordinated
without strict rules.

I will definitively continue to be active here, basically for discussing
stuff with the ECT team and Elmar so that he knows the opinion from a
core developer. If there are specific stuff that might be interesting to
be added to core, we simply redirect it to the core list for approval or
 direct a "call for discussions" to attract interested core developers
to read a particular thread in ECT-list.

>> First of all, I think that there should not have been any discussion
>> about the typo3/contrib/ suggestion (and stuff like this) on the core
>> team list.

I think any proposal from ECT to the core team should be summarized by
some ECT team member. It won't work calling the whole core team to
discuss stuff here on ECT. But to make things work I would allow a core
member (such as myself) to submit a summarized proposal from ECT to the
core list, calling for discussions in the ECT list.

>> My suggestion is that next time we are in such a situation, someone
>> (we'll need a moderator for this) has to start a Wiki document, which
>> can be announced on dev, core and ect lists. We will wait two weeks
>> while everyone can post his thoughts and comments, explain why XY is
>> better than XZ, etc.

In most cases this is probably too much overhead. Fixing dates and
official wiki pages for a discussion that might go into a totally
different direction is too much work for that "moderator" (probably
Elmar, who already does "too much"). So the simple workflow would be
sufficient in most cases:

1) idea emerges in ECT, discussion is hot and members post their ideas
2) someone (maybe the idea creator? maybe Elmar.. whoever finds that ECT
has reached some consensus) sums up the idea and explains what is wanted
from CORE that is not possible yet.
3) that summary is posted by a core member (Kutschker or myself, who
follow the discussions here) to the core list.
4) discussion re-starts with core members joining the ECT group in that
thread
5) someone finally creates a patch that will be posted to core list and
possible approved, because it has the "envolvment" of several core
developers already.

If we see the example about the typo3/contrib, I think that it worked
pretty well how it was handled. It just didn't came to a core patch
because we couldn't find any reason to do so.

Cheers,
Ernesto