Re: Proposal: use only github for new MSE spec bugs

On Thursday, October 15, Jerry and I went through the current set of open
MSE spec bugs on GitHub (approximately 22) and applied labels, milestone,
and assignee. The result is a rebalanced editor workload along with
preliminary expectations of what next steps are needed for each issue.

To assist similar MSE spec bug triaging in the future, as well as to help
inform potentially similar EME spec bug triaging, I have summarized the
meanings of the labels and milestone selections we applied in this round of
MSE triage.  I welcome any clarifying corrections; the purpose of this
summary is to help get everyone on the same page.

While preparing this summary, some further clarifications and actions were
discovered:

1) Generally, we should consider closing V.Next MSE issues (for now, at
least).

2) We should change the currently-labeled “needs author input” to “needs
feedback” and assign to appropriate reporter to obtain that feedback.
During triage, we misunderstood “author” to mean bug author, not web
author. We’ll also need to add a separate, new, “needs author input” label
for future usage for when we might need input from web authors.

The following is a snapshot of a section of the README.md from
https://github.com/w3c/media-source/pull/33 (GitHub will have slightly
different markdown formatting versus this email, but the content is
otherwise the same.)

== Labels ==

Each bug may have multiple labels.

“needs feedback”

The issue is pending further clarification from the assignee, likely the
original bug filer or another who reported aspects of the issue in the
bug’s history. The feedback request needs to be in a comment associated
with the addition of this label, along with a request for reassignment back
to an editor once feedback is provided.

“needs author input”

The editors are seeking input from web authors on the issue. For example,
whether a requested change is useful or how best to expose information.

“needs follow-up”

The assignee, likely an editor, needs to investigate more deeply before we
can decide if this “needs implementation” or to otherwise move forward. The
editors have discussed the issue and do not need to discuss it further
until we have the resulting follow-up from the assignee. This includes
things like determining external spec dependencies, seeking input from
other spec owners and/or WGs, confirming the understanding of the nature of
the bug, and beginning to formulate a path to a solution.

This doesn’t necessarily mean follow-up has “Started” or is “In Progress.”

“needs implementation”

The steps needed to resolve this issue are clearly understood and agreed
upon. This likely means drafting and committing a spec change, possibly via
a pull request. No further discussion is necessary at this time, though
review of the change may still be appropriate. Should that change, this
label should be removed.

For a bug to be labeled with this, it needs to be understood well enough
and in scope of the marked milestone. Otherwise, “needs follow-up” or
punting milestone might be options.

This label does not refer to user agent implementations.

“blocked”

Some external dependency or another GitHub issue identified in comment
associated with this label’s addition is (or might be) blocking progress on
this bug.

“feature request”

The issue is related to or requesting a new use case or capability not
currently (explicitly) covered by the spec. Depending on the nature and
impact of the request and the stage of the spec, it may be assigned to a
future milestone.

“interoperability”

Resolution of this issue is particularly important for interoperability
among user agents. This may include breaking API changes, issues related to
media compatibility across user agents, or ambiguous parts of the spec that
could lead to different incompatible interpretations. There may be known or
probable differing interpretations in implementations of the associated
portion of the spec. If the identified issue is not addressed, there is a
high likelihood of meaningful interoperability problems. The fix for the
issue would need to provide a clear direction to prevent differing
interpretations by user agents.

“wontfix”, “invalid”, “duplicate”

Self-explanatory :)

Issues with these labels should always be closed (unless they were
re-opened at which time an editor should probably remove these labels if
the re-opening is accepted).


== Milestones ==

“V#”: A bug in version # of the spec.

Currently, V1 is the first version of MSE (in CR in Q4 2015).

“V.Next”:

Perhaps to be addressed by some later version of the spec; not currently
expected to be in scope of specific version of the spec. Typically, this
milestone is correlated with issues labeled “feature request”. This is
equivalent to Bugzilla’s RESOLVED LATER status. As such and to keep the
issue tracker focused, issues with this milestone will generally be closed.
When work on a new version of the spec starts, the V.Next issues, including
those that are closed, should be reviewed and considered for the new
version.

(no milestone):
The issue has not been triaged or the editors are currently discussing.

--

Matt


On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:24 PM Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com> wrote:

> All of the currently active w3c bugzilla MSE spec bugs have now been
> migrated to GitHub.
> We have 23 open MSE spec bugs in total at the moment.
> We'll also need to keep an eye on the w3c bugzilla to catch any stray new
> bugs or bug updates that might occur (incorrectly) there and migrate them
> to GitHub as appropriate.
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:24 PM Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com> wrote:
>
>> The spec update PR is pending review @
>> https://github.com/w3c/media-source/pull/13.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:11 PM Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the pointer. It looks like the origin of that utility script
>>> (webcomponents) no longer uses it, either. I'll remove it for MSE for now.
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:03 PM David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe there is a <script> tag and some <meta> tags near the top of
>>>> the ReSpec source. I commented them out in EME since it pointed to
>>>> Bugzilla. I'm sure the script could be adapted; it's possible someone has
>>>> done that since I last looked.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What's the correct way of removing the "See a problem? Select text and
>>>>> [file a bug]" box at the top right of the MSE spec? I noticed this refers
>>>>> to the w3c bug tracker; also, the EME spec does not include this box.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:14 PM Jerry Smith (IEP) <
>>>>> jdsmith@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perfect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Paul Cotton
>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 13, 2015 11:59 AM
>>>>>> *To:* Matt Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>; David LaPalomento <
>>>>>> dlapalomento@brightcove.com>
>>>>>> *Cc:* Jerry Smith (IEP) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>; <
>>>>>> public-html-media@w3.org> <public-html-media@w3.org>
>>>>>> *Subject:* RE: Proposal: use only github for new MSE spec bugs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >I assume I should resolve the original w3c bug as "MOVED" with an
>>>>>> appropriate link to the github bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Works for me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From: *Matt Wolenetz
>>>>>> *Sent: *13/10/2015 2:10 PM
>>>>>> *To: *David LaPalomento; Paul Cotton
>>>>>> *Cc: *Jerry Smith (IEP); <public-html-media@w3.org>
>>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Proposal: use only github for new MSE spec bugs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As discussed in this morning's media task force MSE teleconf, I'll
>>>>>> file new github issues for each of the currently active w3c bugzilla MSE
>>>>>> spec bugs and link to them from the w3c bugs, and update the bug tracker
>>>>>> links in the editor's draft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Paul/Jerry*: Once I've created the corresponding github bug, I
>>>>>> assume I should resolve the original w3c bug as "MOVED" with an appropriate
>>>>>> link to the github bug. Is this correct? This would allow us to more easily
>>>>>> discover newly filed w3c MSE bugs that might still happen after this
>>>>>> migration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM David LaPalomento <
>>>>>> dlapalomento@brightcove.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a developer very interested in MSE but less involved in the w3c
>>>>>> process, a big +1 to this proposal. Having both trackers is a bit confusing
>>>>>> and I suspect having more activity occurring in github will encourage the
>>>>>> huge community active there to participate more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Paul Cotton <
>>>>>> Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Would it make sense to make placeholder github issues for
>>>>>> existing, open, w3c MSE bugs, and restrict all MSE spec bug activity to
>>>>>> github issues?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no problem with us doing as long as we add a comment to each
>>>>>> of the former 19 Bugzilla bugs pointing forward to the appropriate GitHub
>>>>>> issue.   I suggest you go ahead and do this ASAP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >2. Is it possible to update the w3c bug tracker to indicate that
>>>>>> new MSE bugs or activity on existing w3c MSE spec bugs should occur on
>>>>>> github's issue tracker?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure how to do this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Which versions of the MSE spec would need updating to reference
>>>>>> using github as the primary issue tracker for spec bugs (just the current
>>>>>> editor's draft, or some retro-active editing of earlier published snapshots
>>>>>> of the spec too?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> W3C does not normally change even the Status section of published
>>>>>> documents.  And for older documents we would NOT want to get rid of the
>>>>>> pointer to the Bugzilla component since historically it is the right
>>>>>> pointer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would recommend that the best way to make sure that people are
>>>>>> looking at a TR page specification with the correct Status information is
>>>>>> to get going on turning on automatic publication of Editor’s draft for MSE
>>>>>> as we have for EME.  I believe Jerry has an action to look into that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /paulc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Matt Wolenetz [mailto:wolenetz@google.com]
>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 08, 2015 7:18 PM
>>>>>> *To:* <public-html-media@w3.org>
>>>>>> *Subject:* Proposal: use only github for new MSE spec bugs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the moment, we are using both w3c and github to track open MSE
>>>>>> spec bugs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the recent FOMS 2015 & Demuxed 2015 conferences, we heard praise
>>>>>> from other attendees of the move by EME to primarily using github's issue
>>>>>> tracker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In light of EME's move to gh for new issue tracking, external appeals
>>>>>> of similar for MSE, and to consolidate tracking of all new MSE spec bugs, I
>>>>>> propose that we move to using solely github for tracking newly opened MSE
>>>>>> spec bugs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before moving forward, I would like to understand better:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Would it make sense to make placeholder github issues for
>>>>>> existing, open, w3c MSE bugs, and restrict all MSE spec bug activity to
>>>>>> github issues?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Is it possible to update the w3c bug tracker to indicate that new
>>>>>> MSE bugs or activity on existing w3c MSE spec bugs should occur on github's
>>>>>> issue tracker?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. Which versions of the MSE spec would need updating to reference
>>>>>> using github as the primary issue tracker for spec bugs (just the current
>>>>>> editor's draft, or some retro-active editing of earlier published snapshots
>>>>>> of the spec too?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>