Apologies to JKM if you got this already . . . I thought I emailed you directly, but I can't find it in my sent mail folder.
What happened to "integrate databrowse into admin" and a few other features? They were on the 1.1 list right before you re-organized it, so I didn't know if they were unintentionally lost or intentionally rejected: http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.1Features?version=101 Also, I added my votes here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pIaJn09D1vqW1yJjl3wGUeg (not sure if you're counting non-committer votes or not) Thanks. -Bob On Nov 13, 2:48 pm, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks -- > > I've reorganized the 1.1 feature list > (http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.1Features) and added "short > codes" so we can have a quick shorthand as we review features. > > I've also reviewed most of the features on the list. I'll talk about the > review process -- and how y'all can contribute -- below, but if you just wanna > see my thoughts, they're > here:http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pSqnCvef6OXmGWQ9qbEVMeA. > > I'd like to ask committers and anyone else to send me their own rankings. The > easiest way is just to copy the spreadsheet and send it to me when you're > done, but if you're anti-google just email me something I can read with codes, > scores, and any notes. I'll add other folks' rankings to the master page as I > get 'em. > > Committers: please get me your thoughts ASAP. > > Please use the standard +1/+0/-0/-1 ranking. In this case the scores > have some additional meaning: > > +1 -- "Yes!" > > For "must-have" features. > > A +1 from a committer means that s/he will champion the feature, guide > the implementor (or implement it personally), review the patch, and commit > the feature personally. > > A +1 from a non-committer is an offer to personally work on the feature, > or to help the person working on it by reviewing the patch, testing, etc. > > +0 -- "OK" > > For features that are a "good idea". > > A +0 from a committer means that s/he will not stand in the way of the > feature, but also won't personally invest much effort in it. > > -0 -- "Meh" > > For features that don't seem all that hot. > > A -0 from a committer indicates disapproval, but that s/he won't argue > against the feature if another committer approves it. > > -1 -- "No!" > > A strong vote against. > > A -1 from a committer essentially is a veto. No features will be checked > in with a -1 vote from a committer; only if s/he gets talked up to a -0 > or better will the feature happen. > > Using these votes, we'll make lists of "must-have", "nice-to-have", and > "deferred", and "rejected" features. These lists will be based on the > following criteria, but remember there's a holistic aspect to this process. > We'll use the votes to draft a feature list, but we'll also open up the list > for discussion and make changes accordingly. > > "Must-have" features: > > * +1s from multiple committers. > > * A committer who can work on the feature, or a lieutenant (or more than > one) willing and able to implement the feature. > > * No votes from committers worse than +0. > > * Unfinished features on this list will delay the release. Thus, > no single committer can be the sole champion for more than a > couple-three features. That means the maximum size of this list is about > 15-20 features, and will likely be closer to 10-12. > > "Nice-to-have" features: > > * At least one +1 from a committer. > > * A lieutenant or committer who'll work on the feature. > > * No votes from committers worse than -0. > > * These will be the focus of work after the must-haves. > > "Deferred" features: > > * No +1 votes, but no -1 votes either, or features that lack a > implementor. > > * This list will likely be full of good ideas that we'll look at again for > the 1.2 release. > > "Rejected" features > > * No +1 votes from committers, few +0s, and at least one -1. Think an > average of worse than -0. > > * We'll reject these features, and wontfix any related tickets. > > * This doesn't, though, mean "rejected for all eternity" -- folks who feel > strongly can bring up these features again during another feature review > process. > > Thanks! > > Jacob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
