Re: Revamping Flags

Eliot, I see. That makes sense.

Cheers,
Clay


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  Thanks, Clay.****
>
> ** **
>
> I’d be happy collapsing Unconfirmed Import into Needs Review for donated
> content, as long as we also use the editorial notes to indicate that the
> topic is new and donated—and needs attribution. I think you’re correct;
> that last point is the only real difference.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers.****
>
> Eliot ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Clay Wells [mailto:cwells73@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:28 AM
> *To:* Eliot Graff
> *Cc:* Chris Mills; Doug Schepers; WebPlatform Community
> *Subject:* Re: Revamping Flags****
>
> ** **
>
> IMHO, the following are pretty much the same thing:****
>
> Unconfirmed import (Specifically for content donated but yet to be
> reviewed)****
>
> Needs review (for changes/additions to be buddy-checked)****
>
> I'm a little confused what the difference would be.?****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> Clay****
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
>  I like the ideas here, and I would argue for the following set of flags:*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> Unconfirmed import (Specifically for content donated but yet to be
> reviewed)****
>
> Needs review (for changes/additions to be buddy-checked)****
>
> Missing Content (rather than missing examples, with notes to indicate what
> content is missing)****
>
> Deletion/Move candidate (with notes to indicate details)****
>
> Contains Errors (with notes to details)****
>
>  ****
>
> I think these cover the central concerns in a way that is abstracted
> enough to contain most needs. We can use the editorial notes and develop a
> syntax that is readable and intuitive:****
>
>  ****
>
> MISSING CONTENT (3 August 2013): no description of x parameter.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks.****
>
>  ****
>
> Eliot****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Clay Wells [mailto:cwells73@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:07 AM
> *To:* Chris Mills
> *Cc:* Doug Schepers; WebPlatform Community
> *Subject:* Re: Revamping Flags****
>
>  ****
>
> In response to both... +1****
>
>  ****
>
> Cheers,****
>
> Clay****
>
>  ****
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org> wrote:****
>
> Yeah, couldn't agree more.
>
> I reckon 4 or 5 is about the most we should have, keep things simple and
> unimposing.
>
> Maybe a 4th flag along the lines of "Needs corrections/details adding", if
> inaccuracies or missing details have been found, either during the review,
> or just by a casual observer. Some details could then be left in the
> editorial notes block.
>
> Chris Mills
> Opera Software, dev.opera.com
> W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org
> Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)****
>
>
> On 25 Jun 2013, at 10:13, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi, folks-
> >
> > We've had many people report that they are discouraged, intimidated, and
> confused by the current set of flags.
> >
> > Julee and I discussed this when I was giving her the rundown of the
> recent Seattle Doc Sprint, and we think perhaps we should remove most of
> the flags.
> >
> > We propose the following 3 flags (for now):
> > 1) Unconfirmed Imported Content: for MSDN or other automated content
> >
> > 2) Needs Review: general purpose, for people who want to review of the
> content they've changed, or people who want to flag something as odd
> >
> > 3) Needs Examples: For pages where the examples aren't up to snuff, or
> no examples exist. (In writing this email, it occurs to me that we could
> also add flags for each of the WPW tasks, but I haven't thought deeply
> about it.)
> >
> > I propose that we discuss the flags on this thread for the next week,
> then next week, we change the templates to remove most of the flags.
> >
> > Changes to the visible style will be done later.
> >
> > Regards-
> > -Doug
> >****
>
>   ****
>
>  ** **
>