Changes to review policy

ISHIKAWA,chiaki ishikawa at yk.rim.or.jp
Mon May 2 03:25:22 UTC 2016


On 2016/04/29 3:29, R Kent James wrote:
> 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.
>

I think just putting more efforts in "2) ui-review" , especially 
concerning accessibility for the physically-challenged, and
the developer community as a whole pay more attention to  "backing out" 
feature as much as possible (there may be cases where "backing out" is 
impossible though) would be just fine.

I am not sure, though, how my thought above can be codified or not.

CI

> :rkent
>

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/attachments/20160502/a273a5af/attachment.html>


More information about the tb-planning mailing list