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

Re: Proposed Changes to Issue Tracking System

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:20:17 -0500
Message-ID: <4694F531.40307@aptest.com>
To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
CC: public-forms@w3.org

I am really buried this week and trying to go on holiday. I am not 
blowing you off... well, yes I am.  I am putting this in my priority 
queue for when I return on 23 July.

John Boyer wrote:
>
> 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
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 15:20:45 UTC

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