- From: <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:48:34 +0100
- To: Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
- Cc: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
> On 9 Feb 2015, at 04:16, Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com> wrote: > > The point of this page is that we're going to start voting on user stories on Tuesday. > > Having alternative paths or groupings makes it hard to put +1/-1 votes next to each user story you need and want to implement. Having to get the user stories done in one week, ( and delimiting that with a move to a vote ) is of course putting a lot of pressure and hence tension into the process of writing them down. That should be expected when rushing things.... None the less, at present the user stories are as shown here, and I am feeling reasonably happy about them. https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories&oldid=81176 It now has 7 major sections: • Approved user stories ( eg. SWAT0 ) • Proposed contexts These are links to other pages. I think a discussion of context is interesting, though it may need filling in, and we would need to add other p2p and inter company contexts too. I have tried to build some user stories where the contexts are made more explicit. • Proposed Basic User Stories These are user stories taken from the current raft of social networks. I moved the text Evan added recently about these being meant to be read independently of where the data or the users are to here. • Proposed co-operation stories These are stories that bring the co-operative nature of the Social Web to the foreground • Proposed developer stories These kind of make it clear that one can write one's own non html based clients. • Proposed New Economy Stories • W3C Group Collaboration Stories In my view with some clean up this could be the basis for a user stories document, which will certainly help the group focus on where it is going, and why it is doing things. As it is the stories do not make any technical decisions about how the social web should be built, what technology they should use, or what types of APIs are needed. They do emphasise that they should be inter organisational and that it is the data and the APIs that are being standardised. > > -Evan > > On 2015-02-07 06:19 PM, Bassetti, Ann wrote: >> Hmmm, good points Henry... which I read immediately after sending my previous note. >> >> Although I like the convenience of tracking, by having submissions initially separate -- I was envisioning we might later be able to group stories into larger categories. Perhaps that's harder to do. >> >> I agree that next Tuesday feels too short for concluding the user stories. I'm sympathetic to the Chairs' efforts to move this along. But appears we're finding the user stories to be harder to untangle than expected. >> >> Too bad we aren't having the F2F sooner than March 17! Might be easier to slog through this in person. >> >> -- Ann >> >> Ann Bassetti >> From: henry.story@bblfish.net >> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:05 PM >> To: James M Snell >> Cc: Tim Berners-Lee; public-socialweb@w3.org; Evan Prodromou >> Subject: Re: User Stories problem >> >> >>> On 7 Feb 2015, at 22:17, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> What I would recommend is separating the user stories by name. >>> >> If « by name » you mean « by topic name » then yes, see my previous e-mail. >> >> If « by name » you mean « by proposer », as you seem to indicate below, then I don’t >> really like that idea. That ends up pushing people to vote by allegiances to someone >> rather than by the value of the story. Also it means that stories that are very close together >> end up far apart, so that their similarities cannot be seen clearly and leading to cognitive overload. >> In any case voting, should be considered something more like a straw poll, to help open a debate. >> >> Remember that the coming Tuesday is meant to be the deadline for Stories. I did suggest >> in the last teleconf. that having only one week to write the stories, was very very short. >> >>> Evan can have his proposed set and keep those separate from those prose by others. If user stories are added by one person, they should not be edited by another unless there is agreement to do so. >>> >> I think having stories organised by general topics makes sense. The names of those >> who propose it should be removed - it seems pretty irrelevant. If people think that a >> story is not relevant there should be arguments put forward as to why they think so. >> >> I agree that one should not making edits that change the direction of the story. >> >> Henry Story >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >> >>> On Feb 7, 2015 11:40 AM, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >>> Dear Social Web Wg, >>> >>> I would like Evan Prodromou to stop trying to build his prejudices >>> of what a correct API is into the user stories. >>> >>> I spent quite a lot of time this afternoon adding stories that >>> brought in more clearly the distributed nature of what the >>> Social Web should be. We had consensus on this in an earlier post [1]. >>> The version I worked on was here: >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories&oldid=81085 >>> >>> But right after this version of the wiki Evan decided to undo ALL my changes as you can >>> see in this history: >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories&action=history >>> >>> He then moved some of the stories that don't fit his closed model to another section entitled >>> "Additional user stories" . Why is a cross organisational following not fit under "Following" ? >>> Why is that another user story? >>> >>> Why did he remove the longer General Developer Story I put up here: >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories&oldid=81085#General_social_network_client >>> >>> The version I am now looking of the wiki is this one >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories&oldid=81105 >>> >>> Why are there "Proposed" User stories and then "Additional" Ones? Are the ones >>> Evan proposes officially proposed and the other ones there to be ignored? >>> >>> Frankly I thought we had consensus that the social web has to be distributed, and that the >>> distinction should not appear in the user stories. >>> >>> Henry >>> >>> [1] Original post >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Feb/0040.html >>> Content of post: >>> >>> > On 5 Feb 2015, at 17:42, Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > On 2015-02-05 07:51 AM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: >>> >> we dont' want to do that in the user stories ... they have to be implementation independent at this point ... >>> > +1 >>> >> let's try to stay on focus on the mailing list, and if people want to have more technical discussions about plumbing, that's off topic for the WG and you can do that in the IG ]] >>> > Not quite. They're fine conversations to have, and this is the venue for talking about technical discussions. >>> > >>> > But they're confusing when we're talking about user stories. >>> >> So we should have user stories for the social web. Later we can decide wether we need one or two or three of 50 apis. Can we construct a consensus on this? >>> > I agree! >>> > >>> > -Evan >>> > >>> > >>> >>> Social Web Architect >>> http://bblfish.net/ >>> >>> >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ >> >> > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 10:49:06 UTC