Re: Proposed Changes to Issue Tracking System

Hi Shane,

No problem at all!
They were suggestions to help us streamline, but the system is good and we 
are grateful for it.

I am ashamed to admit I didn't spot the actual help file that is available 
until after I sent the message.  So, I would only recommend putting a link 
to it on the main page (http://htmlwg.mn.aptest.com/xforms-issues/) and 
right next to the state drop-down.  For some reason, it has repeatedly 
escaped my attention in that first paragraph.  I guess when one is going 
quickly, one tends to scan the page and the "Create Bug Report" button 
draws attention away from the help link in that paragraph.  Well, that's 
only one guy's reaction.

On the plus side, we have ended up with pretty much the same 
interpretation as is in the document, so my earlier email boils down to 
just wanting the extra states: "Approved for Review" and "Needs Review" 
(or perhaps "Ready for Review").  These seem like they would help 
streamline the process, though I would reiterate that the system as-is is 
good and we are getting great benefit from it.

Thank you,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> 
Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org
07/11/2007 08:20 AM

To
John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA
cc
public-forms@w3.org
Subject
Re: Proposed Changes to Issue Tracking System







I am really buried this week and trying to go on holiday. I am not 
blowing you off... well, yes I am.  I am putting this in my priority 
queue for when I return on 23 July.

John Boyer wrote:
>
> Hi Shane,
>
> The Forms WG has been using your issue tracking system with success 
> for XForms 1.1 last call issues.
>
> Here are some of the more popular states of an issue along with an 
> indication of when we choose them:
>
> Open - The problem has been created in the DB and awaits working group 
> consideration
>
> Needs Approval - One or more members of the working group has 
> considered the problem and proposed a response or a technical 
> direction for the working group to review
>
> Approved - The working group has considered the problem, resolved to 
> "Accept" or "Modify and Accept" a proposed resolution to the issue, 
> and an action item has been assigned to produce spec ready text
>
> Implemented - The spec ready text is available in the editor's draft 
> or a public update to the spec, and the reply has been delivered to 
> the last call commenter
>
> Note that I am not concentrating on the other degenerate cases like 
> closed, suspended, need feedback etc. but rather on states that 
> correspond to a successful progression to the "Implemented" state.
>
> The "needs approval" category seems to be about recording information 
> needed to get either an agreement in principle about how to proceed or 
> to get an easier item closer to completion.  I think something similar 
> is needed for those harder issues where the group approves in 
> principle and chooses a technical direction but decides it is 
> necessary to review the final spec ready text. To support this, the 
> following states seem like they would make valuable additions to the 
> system:
>
> Approved for Review - The working group has considered the problem, 
> resolved to "Accept" or "Modify and Accept" a proposed resolution to 
> the issue, an action item has been assigned, but the group needs to 
> review the spec ready text
>
> Needs Review - One or more working group members has done the assigned 
> action item by preparing spec ready text and now wants the working 
> group to review the result. 
>
> These new states would allow the following reinterpretation of 
> 'Approved':
>
> Approved - The working group has considered the problem, resolved to 
> "Accept" or "Modify and Accept" a proposed resolution to the issue, 
> and an action item has been assigned to produce spec ready text that 
> may be directly implemented without further review of the working group
>
> The Approved state, then, is what happens after Open or Needs Approval 
> for easier issues and after Needs Review for harder issues.
>
> What do you think of these ideas?  Do you think it is possible to add 
> these states (as well as these explanations of the states)?
>
> Finally, it seems like a description of the state progression is 
> needed for the various other possible outcomes.  For example, I am 
> interpreting 'Closed' as something to be assigned when a last call 
> comment is rejected.  But is Closed also a state expected to occur 
> after Implemented, and if so, what work would be expected between 
> Implemented and Closed?  I suppose I could imagine that state 
> happening when a user response is received perhaps.
>
> Thanks,
> John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
> STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher
> Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
> Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
> IBM Victoria Software Lab
> E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 
>
> Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com