Re: UCR workflow

On 8/7/17 6:59 AM, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran wrote:

> Karen, what did you mean by adding the use cases as comments here?

I've undoubtedly confused github issues with comments in other software,
e.g. Google docs. I really thought there was a comment function on
github - guess not. I do wish it had one, and one that worked a bit like
G-docs, where you could highlight something and comment on it. So your
suggestion of using issues is correct.


> Thanks,
> Alejandra
> On 04/08/2017 22:58, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>> I agree - editing the respec document is not for everyone. 
>> I suggest tagging the wiki - maybe we can make sure the tags are up to
>> date and leave it as the place where new use cases are proposed and
>> discussed. Can we have a volunteer to audit and update the tags - and
>> put a process explanation into the wiki - may be required in order to
>> manage the discussion process.  When these are done I will look at the
>> respec document and make sure out-of-scope Use Cases are pruned out.
>> Jaroslav is away, but pulled all the Use cases across and did a lot of
>> scripting, and Ixchel and I have started editing requirements - which
>> is where all the analytical process happens to deduplicate and
>> generalised, and we'll need help checking we have got as minimal set,
>> correctly cross references to original use cases.
>> Rob
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 at 05:24 Karen Coyle <
>> <>> wrote:
>>     There is a somewhat cryptic item on Monday's agenda: "UCR entries
>>     workflow question" that we thought might benefit from a short
>>     explanation in email.
>>     At the moment we have the draft use case space on the wiki. We
>>     also now
>>     have a draft UCR document in github that will become our first public
>>     working draft. We informally decided at the last meeting that any
>>     updates to existing use cases should be made in the github version.
>>     Unfortunately, that doesn't cover the entirety of the workflow
>>     question,
>>     so here is a fuller description of that.
>>     1. The current UCR document in Github contains all use cases that have
>>     been submitted. It does not differentiate between those that have been
>>     accepted by the group by a vote and those that have not. This is
>>     making
>>     it difficult to line up as-yet-un-voted use cases for the weekly
>>     meetings. (Also note that there are use cases that we reject as
>>     out-of-scope.)
>>     2. We have not decided where new use cases will be entered: the
>>     wiki or
>>     github?
>>     For #1, options seem to be:
>>      - mark all use cases in the github document with their status, or
>>      - leave use cases in the wiki until they are accepted, then add
>>     them to
>>     the github document
>>     For #2, options are:
>>      - Add new use cases to the Wiki document, and inform the chairs
>>     so they
>>     can schedule them on a conference call
>>      - Add new uses cases directly to the github document, and inform the
>>     chairs so they can schedule them on a conference call
>>      - Add new uses cases as comments on the github document, and editors
>>     will add them
>>     Some things we need to keep in mind:
>>      - We want a good audit trail of what use cases we have
>>     considered, even
>>     if they are not accepted as in scope by the group
>>      - Not everyone is comfortable using github, much less editing a
>>     Respec
>>     document
>>     There are probably other issues that we haven't identified here. We'd
>>     like to make this a SHORT item on the Monday call, so if you have a
>>     preferred solution please offer it to the group via this maillist
>>     so we
>>     can focus on a small number of solutions.
>>     kc for the chairs
>>     --
>>     Karen Coyle
>> <>
>>     m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:+1%20510-984-3600>

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Monday, 7 August 2017 18:27:58 UTC