- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:13:13 +0100
- To: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
- Cc: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>, eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, Steinar Skagemo <sskagemo@gmail.com>, Kjetil Helberg <kjetil@helberg.no>, John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk>, Kevin Novak <kevinnovak@aia.org>
On Nov 12, 2008, at 13:46 , Jose M. Alonso wrote: > El 12/11/2008, a las 10:29, Kjetil Kjernsmo escribió: >> This also implies that some distillation is needed, that Use Cases >> admitted to >> the note are issues where IG members find common ground, unless one >> member is >> deeply committed to something that other members also find >> interesting but is >> not assigning resources to. > > Do you have an opinion on how we should conduct this process? Would > you choose out of the ones in the wiki or would you try to identify > overlap and develop more generic ones based on those for the Note? One issue here is goodwill creep. Use cases and requirements work often sees people violently agreeing that this or that use case would be absolutely wonderful to address, but when time comes to actually do something about it no one is willing to commit the resources to do so. I'm not pointing fingers here, I myself am finding it difficult to find the time to participate in the IG, and couldn't even make it to the f2f even though I was on site. The idea is simply to avoid wasting too much time discussing things that will get dropped because no one will work on them. One potential way of addressing this, which will be familiar to some of you, is to distribute beans around. Each participant gets a certain number of beans (say five) that they can use to support use cases. They can give all their beans to one, or they can spread them out. Only use cases that get a certain proportion of the beans get to go into the Note. This can be kept simple, or made more complex (people get extra beans for putting in editing work, lose some for not attending meetings) and will never be absolutely perfect (which is where chairs can step in ex machina) but it has two advantages: 1) it encourages people to merge use cases that are similar since that increases their viability; and 2) it forces people to put their mouths where the beans are rather than gleefully supporting everything that sounds nice. The implementation isn't necessarily complex, a wiki or someone with a spreadsheet can suffice. I'm not entirely convinced that we're at a stage at which we absolutely need such a mechanism, but since we're looking at a distillation and filtering process I thought I'd point out this option. In general my experience is that anything that can help reduce use cases creep early helps a lot down the line. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 13:13:52 UTC