Re: freezing the user stories

Melvin,

The minutes were posted on the wiki shortly after the conclusion of
yesterday's call. You can always find the link to the minutes from the
agenda page. Please check there before complaining the minutes are not
posted.

You have been told in the past that it is fine that Tantek is not reading
the mailing list.
http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-03-10/line/1426011511341

Additionally from Harry's email last time this came up, "there is no
mechanism anywhere in W3C process that can force someone to respond to
email except (for now) the Last Call process and Formal Objection process."
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Apr/0097.html

Your -1 vote was overridden by the chair because the chair thought your -1
was due to a misunderstanding of the proposal, and you were not on the call
to clarify your position. You were invited to join the next call if you
have new information to add. That is documented in the minutes here
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-28-minutes#override

Your current proposal to re-open the issue of renaming the story is
un-founded. You have not provided any new information, which is required in
order to re-open an issue. You have blatantly ignored repeated questions
asking for clarification about *why* your implementation is affected by
renaming the story.

If you would like to contribute to this group, I would suggest adding some
information from the SoLiD perspective to the brainstorming document where
we are trying to get a sense of how to converge the approaches. So far
nobody from the SoLiD perspective has stepped up.
https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-APIs-Brainstorming

----
Aaron Parecki
aaronparecki.com
@aaronpk <http://twitter.com/aaronpk>

originally posted at http://aaronparecki.com/replies/2015/07/29/1/w3c


On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:34 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>