Re: freezing the user stories

I think there are two possible spots you have hit confusion.

You have been told repeatedly that a user story is to define functionality
only, not vocabulary.  When asked how this could possibly effect your code
you said that naming is everything, implying that you have some incorrect
assumption that the story defines vocabulary.  User stories are just to
give us some set of required functionality for the APIs as we work on them.

The other place you could be mistaken is that you were incorrectly
conflating the Inbox user story with the concept of an "inbox" in pump.io
(as I understand it).  It was to illuminate this exact confusion that led
to the desire to change the user story name.  I suspect you are frustrated
because you incorrectly read the user story in this way and this change now
brings this to light.  The user story will only get more confusing with the
proposal to add "inbox" to the AS2 spec.  The fact is, when you look at the
functionality of the user story this is more along the lines of a "News
Feed" (Facebook), untitled home feed (Twitter), untitled posts feed
(Google+), untitled feed (LinkedIn).   Whereas "Inbox" is used for a
collection of direct messages to the user by both Facebook and LinkedIn.

The -0.5 was due to "lets see what happens on the mailing list", except
that was based on your claims to a discussion taking place here.  Which is
again, false.  You sent one e-mail, no one responded.  He then retracted
his dissension.  Your -1 was a complaint that this effected you
implementation, which as stated above is more a problem of your confusion
then of the user story.  Also, you were not on the call nor have you yet to
give a single concrete example of how this effects you.

Yes, you can re-open the issue at a later date.  That is the case with all
resolutions.  However, you had best have new information for us to review.



On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 29 July 2015 at 12:59, Amy G <amy@rhiaro.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The minutes from this discussion are here:
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-28-minutes#Rename_inbox_user_story
>>
>
> Thanks for sharing the minutes.  I think it would be a incorrect to think
> that changing the the title of the user story does have any effect on the
> user story itself, because that's the framing, and gives the sense of the
> whole user story.  It's a bit like saying changing the headline of an
> article but keeping the text the same isnt changing it.  In SoLiD we
> discussed implementing inboxes, and the reaction was positive.
>
> Sorry I was a bit pushed for time yesterday (doing two things at once),
> the proposer has said that this could be reponened with new information, I
> hope I've articulated the reasoning in more detail.
>
>
>>
>> The user story was *not* changed, just renamed to make the name more
>> consistent with the contents of the user story (it was renamed from 'Inbox'
>> to 'Read social stream', and given that 'social stream' is mentioned in the
>> user story contents more times than 'inbox' this change seems sensible to
>> me). The contents of the story were not changed at all. Any implementation
>> of the steps described in the user story should not have been affected by
>> the name change.
>>
>> If you use the name 'inbox' in your code, that's fine: an implementation
>> detail. If you use 'inbox' in your UI, that's also a totally reasonable
>> implementation detail. If the actual functionality of your implementation
>> is dependant on the story being called 'inbox', could you give more details
>> how? Again, the requirements outlined in the story are the same.
>> Implementations should be of those requirements.
>>
>> My understanding is that to -1 a proposal on a telecon, you should be
>> prepared to dial into the call to better explain your position, rather than
>> relying on IRC.
>>
>> On 29 July 2015 at 11:41, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I was under the impression that the work on the user stories was frozen
>>> and that the focus now was on implementations.
>>>
>>> This is not the case.
>>>
>>> Yesterday there was a proposal to change one of the user stories, in
>>> fact it was the user story that had the most consensus out of all 90 (15
>>> +1s)
>>>
>>> I am  against this change, not least of which because I had already
>>> announced I was attempting to implement it, and was told the user stories
>>> were frozen.
>>>
>>> I propose to reject this change and there should be changes to the user
>>> stories under the following sensible conditions:
>>>
>>> 1. If it goes to a vote, the vote should be unanimous.
>>>
>>> Yesterday there was a -1 and a -0.5. and I think a 0 (minutes would help)
>>>
>>> 2. The proposer of a change should have or be implementing the user
>>> story *in its entirety*
>>>
>>> I dont believe any of the people voting for the change are implementing
>>> it *it its entirety* only partially.  I have several GB of setup data on my
>>> hard drive preparing to create all the steps of this story, I now am
>>> starting to feel my time could be better spent doing other things.
>>>
>>> 3. The proposer must be prepared to follow the mailing list and related
>>> discussions.
>>>
>>> In this case the proposer (also a chair) has refused to follow the
>>> mailing list, and so, we dont have a good record in our official
>>> communication flow of arguments for and against.  Is it even allowed under
>>> W3C WG rules for a chair not to read the ML?
>>>
>>> Please could we freeze the user stories, going forward unless there is
>>> unanimous consent.
>>>
>>
>>
>