W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > July 2007

Proposed Changes to Issue Tracking System

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:37:20 -0700
To: shane@aptest.com
Cc: public-forms@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF5A55DE1C.049B65DA-ON88257314.00631D93-88257314.00664ED1@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Shane,

The Forms WG has been using your issue tracking system with success for 
XForms 1.1 last call issues.

Here are some of the more popular states of an issue along with an 
indication of when we choose them:

Open - The problem has been created in the DB and awaits working group 
consideration 

Needs Approval - One or more members of the working group has considered 
the problem and proposed a response or a technical direction for the 
working group to review 

Approved - The working group has considered the problem, resolved to 
"Accept" or "Modify and Accept" a proposed resolution to the issue, and an 
action item has been assigned to produce spec ready text 

Implemented - The spec ready text is available in the editor's draft or a 
public update to the spec, and the reply has been delivered to the last 
call commenter 

Note that I am not concentrating on the other degenerate cases like 
closed, suspended, need feedback etc. but rather on states that correspond 
to a successful progression to the "Implemented" state.

The "needs approval" category seems to be about recording information 
needed to get either an agreement in principle about how to proceed or to 
get an easier item closer to completion.  I think something similar is 
needed for those harder issues where the group approves in principle and 
chooses a technical direction but decides it is necessary to review the 
final spec ready text. To support this, the following states seem like 
they would make valuable additions to the system:

Approved for Review - The working group has considered the problem, 
resolved to "Accept" or "Modify and Accept" a proposed resolution to the 
issue, an action item has been assigned, but the group needs to review the 
spec ready text

Needs Review - One or more working group members has done the assigned 
action item by preparing spec ready text and now wants the working group 
to review the result. 

These new states would allow the following reinterpretation of 'Approved':

Approved - The working group has considered the problem, resolved to 
"Accept" or "Modify and Accept" a proposed resolution to the issue, and an 
action item has been assigned to produce spec ready text that may be 
directly implemented without further review of the working group 

The Approved state, then, is what happens after Open or Needs Approval for 
easier issues and after Needs Review for harder issues.

What do you think of these ideas?  Do you think it is possible to add 
these states (as well as these explanations of the states)?

Finally, it seems like a description of the state progression is needed 
for the various other possible outcomes.  For example, I am interpreting 
'Closed' as something to be assigned when a last call comment is rejected. 
 But is Closed also a state expected to occur after Implemented, and if 
so, what work would be expected between Implemented and Closed?  I suppose 
I could imagine that state happening when a user response is received 
perhaps.

Thanks,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 18:37:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:44 UTC