Changes to review policy

R Kent James kent at
Thu Apr 28 18:29:11 UTC 2016

On 4/28/2016 10:59 AM, Jim Porter wrote:
>> 2.    Would a super-review process have prevented the debacle?
> I think it would help *if* super-reviewers agreed on the standards for
> making changes (not additions or deletions) to the UI. Having set
> standards for this is a key to ensuring that it will work.

I can agree that some standards would be valuable, and are really the
key to this. What I would suggest is that you write the standards, get
us to agree, and then leave it at that. In virtually all cases that I
can think of where UI was pushed on users, there were complainers
(sometimes me) who argued against an aggressive implementation. But
there is also always a counter-reaction that falls back to "someone will
always complain, we just need to move forward with new features anyway."
What is missing is either 1) a single authority to make large decisions
with marketing focus (such as a product manager), or 2) objective
principles that we can use to justify complaints.

If you can write standards that you think can distinguish between good
and bad cases of pushing new features, you have my support. But I am
very reluctant to formalize that into some "super-review" process other
than our existing process of 1) regular review, 2) ui-review, 3) module
owner resolving disputes, 4) Thunderbird Council as a potential
overruling of all.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list