W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > April 2019

Re: Minutes from CNEG meeting 2019-04-11 - un-tagging requirements, really? (re action 302)

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 10:37:38 +0200
To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>, "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <473c9278-64e8-6b7f-5344-c73b5b7bd3aa@few.vu.nl>
Hi Lars, all,

I'm copying Nick's mail after your below, so that there's a complete history. Sorry we've not seen your email.

And I guess the UCR team (of which I suppose I'm part of) never reacted to that. I guess I've seen the discussion that was trying to figure out a common ground between you and Karen, and then missed the plenary call in which it's been discussed.

Anyway, not good excuses, but re action 302 I'm surprised it was closed without 'urging the UCR team to consolidate the requirement and close them' themselves. That may have triggered something on our side.

As you may see in the minutes, my reluctance to untagging is that it loses a big part of the context of issues, which is hard to retrieve later. Closing feels more appropriate for reflecting that a requirement is handled. Of course that's not possible for issues tagged with multiple deliverable. Which is why we've suggested this 'xxx-closed' tag yesterday.
This said I realize that my fear would apply to the 'plenary-approved' requirements. The older ones can be considered as noise, and I'm less worried about untagging them or closing them abruptly.

That may not help you much though, since (for a reason I now fail to remember) nearly all the issues at
seem to be dually tagged between Conneg and other profile deliverable(s).

As a token of goodwill (and probably out of shame not having jumped in 302) I am willing to add back the 'profile-negotiation' label as well as the new 'profile-negotiation-closed' one on the ones that were un-labeled in the past days. Would this be ok?



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Minutes from CNEG meeting 2019-04-11 - un-tagging requirements,  really?
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 20:24:12 +0000
From: Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) <Nicholas.Car@csiro.au>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-dxwg-wg@w3.org <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>

Hi all,

We - conneg editors - agree that de-tagging isn't a great idea. When we do this, we loose the historical record of Issues that documents have dealt with.

Going forward, we will simply tag issues with xxx-closed when they are closed from the point of view of a subgroup, e.g. if profile-negotiation feels an issue is closed for them, we will use profile-negotiation-closed. This will allow us to deal with issues closed in subgroups and yet still retain the historical record.


On 16/04/2019 20:01, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> Good Evening Antoine,
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:32 PM, Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] wrote:
>> I am not sure to understand why removing the profile-negotiation tag from
>> requirements that have been met. They are still relevant to negotiation even if they
>> are met, aren't they? I would consider closing them is a much better option (though
>> one may argue it's better done in plenary). Loosing the connection from Use Cases
>> and Requirements to our products does not seem good - especially if there are some
>> automatic listings made by using these tags...
> This was discussed in ACTION-302 (cf. email thread starting at [1]). The final resolution was that if we consider that a requirement has been addressed in a deliverable, then we remove the tag but keep the issue open until it has been addressed in _all_ deliverables:
> [[
> [...] If conneg has completed this [requirement #217] you can remove the conneg label
> and you are no long responsible for that issue. You may want to leave a
> comment that you've included it in your document and are removing your
> label.]]
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Feb/0556.html
> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Feb/0597.html
> Best,
> Lars
>> On 12/04/2019 12:35, Svensson, Lars wrote:
>>> ... are at [1].
>>> We spent most of the meeting reviewing open GitHub issues, deciding to flag
>> some of them for closing and to remove the profile-negotiation tag from
>> requirements we consider have been met.
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2019/04/11-dxwgcneg-minutes
>>> Best,
>>> Lars
>>> *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2019 08:38:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:16 UTC