<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016/04/29 3:29, R Kent James wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6245c538-3bde-befd-94a0-3871d267aa43@caspia.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 4/28/2016 10:59 AM, Jim Porter wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:552c6501-2e74-33fb-e052-075e64c4edc5@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre wrap="">2. Would a super-review process have prevented the debacle?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I think it would help <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>if<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think just putting more efforts in "2) ui-review" , especially
concerning accessibility for the physically-challenged, and<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I am not sure, though, how my thought above can be codified or not.<br>
<br>
CI<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6245c538-3bde-befd-94a0-3871d267aa43@caspia.com"
type="cite">
<p>:rkent<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6245c538-3bde-befd-94a0-3871d267aa43@caspia.com"
type="cite">
<p> </p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>