W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > June 2018

Re: New requirements on github?

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 07:47:05 -0700
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <9e4087de-a35a-a956-1883-780b971ff5ec@kcoyle.net>

On 6/28/18 9:56 AM, Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
> I’m gearing up to ensuring we can associate profile use cases and
> requirements with sections in guidance and other documents. I found it
> impossible in the Google Doc to know where things are up to (what do the
> colours mean?,

Doh! Of course it needs a legend (just added). We talked about this
briefly in a meeting but can't expect that to be a deep memory for most.
Thanks, Nick.

 is the first list or the re-ordered list the point of
> truth?, 

The upper list is the list of requirements we are considering. I doubt
if truth is a goal. As requirements are approved changes are made there.

does re-wording happen online or in comments, or sub bullet
> points?)

We decide on rewording during the discussion in meetings. I've tried to
add suggested rewording to the upper list under the requirement.

 and in the last Plenary there was an issue of edit loss for a
> profile requirement rewording from the previous profileneg meeting. 

I'm not perfect. I work from the resolutions in our minutes, so I'll ask
people who are scribing to put the full wording into the minutes, and to
include the reworded version. It's important to get these decisions
recorded accurately in the minutes, not just for me but for the record.


So I
> created an Issue for each requirement to emulate the DCAT group’s work
> in using a proper issue tracker. 
> Every Requirement I could judge to be one in the Google Doc is there and
> labeled as best as I could understand their categorisation and status.
> I’ve put links to category-based listings of the issues at the top of
> the Google Doc as well as a link from each individual Requirement to its
> GitHub Issue in too.
> I’ve also added an item in for the next Plenary’s agenda to discuss
> officially moving from the Google Doc to GitHub Issues.
> Nick
> *Nicholas Car*
> /Senior Experimental Scientist/
> CSIRO Land & Water
> E nicholas.car@csiro.au <mailto:nicholas.car@csiro.au> M 0477 560 177
> <tel:0477%20560%20177> P 07 3833 5632
> Dutton Park, QLD, Australia
> On 28 Jun 2018, at 9:51 pm, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl
> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I saw that yesterday a flurry of new github issues has been created
>> about the requirements we're discussing on the google docs. This
>> includes requirements that have not been approved yet, like
>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/269
>> which includes a comment from me "derived from the previous one: it's
>> rather trivial, but one never knows..." which was already a bit weird
>> but now becomes downward irrelevant unless we put a link to the
>> 'previous one' in github.
>> Am I missing something? Has it been decided that the discussion was
>> going to happen on github for these requirements that used to be on
>> the Google Doc?
>> I'm sorry but I'm afraid I won't have the bandwidth to follow yet
>> another discussion area, especially as each space require
>> verification. I already found that it's hard to keep up between some
>> re-wording agreed in the calls and the wording in the Google doc, I
>> can't imagine having the group to control another space...
>> Best,
>> Antoine

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Friday, 29 June 2018 14:47:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:04 UTC