Re: UCR workflow

Hi All,

On 07/08/2017 19:27, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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.

There is no G-doc like functionality, but it is possible to comment (or 
request changes or approve) when reviewing Pull Requests:

By the way, when creating a new issue in the github repository 
(, a use case template is 
provided (and if the issue is not about a use case, then this template 
will need to be manually removed. Thanks Rob for reviewing and merging 
the pull request about this.

Best regards,


> kc
>> 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>

Received on Monday, 14 August 2017 13:10:31 UTC