Re: Moving forward? (issue tracking, spec review, shaping email discussions)

It would be great to get some direction from the chairs here I think, in 
order to get a focused effort.

Something to the extent of "lets make a group effort of reviewing this 
section of the spec starting today and ending on day X." Then on day X 
we can move on to the next section.

There'll surly be comments outside of what we're currently focusing on, 
but I think it'd help focus to some extent at least.

Dan Connolly wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Are we still supposed not to discuss issues on this list? I hear 
>> conflicting opinions about this. Also, what exactly is the plan in 
>> moving forward? Are the chairs working on this? Someone else?
> One idea for a plan is to start review with the parsing/tree
> construction stuff. I'd encourage messages of the form
>   I have an issue with what section XYZ says about the attached
>   test/example document, which is typical of [some use case...].
> Bonus points for
>   I suggest the following spec text instead ...
> And then the editor(s) would respond, on a best effort basis.
> Various scenarios might follow:
>   1. the editor says "yup; good idea; I pasted that in, with a
>     few tweaks. See version 1.232" and the thread ends there,
>     with apparent consensus
>   2. the editor says "no, because that would be inconsistent
>     with section ABC, especially if you consider this
>     example/test ..." and the commentor says "ah; yes; never mind"
>   3. discussion goes on for a while, but eventually resolves a la 1 or 2
>   4. the editor doesn't respond to the comment in a few days to a week.
>      Nobody bothers to follow up. Life goes on.
>   5. The editor says "hmm... that's tricky; I'm not in a position
>      to swap it in just now; somebody please add
>      it to the issues list we we don't forget."
>   6. the editor doesn't respond to the comment. An advocate (perhaps
>      the commentor, perhaps somebody else) adds the issue to the
>      issue tracking system to make sure we get to it eventually.
> After we do that for a week or two, we move on to another section.
> The idea would be to go over the whole spec, a chunk at a time,
> not necessarily fixing all the problems with it, but getting most
> of the WG familiar with most of it, and getting the bulk of the
> outstanding issues in the issue tracking system.
> The chairs are working on this, rather slowly.
> Some say the parsing/tree construction stuff requires too much
> study before a typical WG member can comment on it intelligently,
> and that we should start with something more approachable.
> There's also an argument for starting at the beginning, since
> that's what we're asking readers to do.
> A few of these options are listed
> at the bottom of ;
> I welcome advise.
> I'm the source of conflicting opinions about whether discussion
> is in order; on 9 May, I closed
> email discussion.
> On 25 May, I encouraged the editor(s) to discuss "Unscoped <style> found 
> outside the <head> "
> In between, in my message of 14 May,
> I reported on efforts to set up issue tracking and such, and asked
> for volunteers for the "issue tracking, summarization, and clustering"
> task. Ah... it seems we have a few more now...
> #  issue tracking, summarization, and clustering
>    1. Dan Connolly
>    2. Chasen Le Hara
>    3. Debi Orton
>    4. David Dailey
>    5. David McClure
>    6. James Graham
>    7. Ian Hickson
>    8. Roman Kitainik
>    9. Benjamin Hedrington
>   10. Karl Dubost
>   11. Jens Meiert
>   12. Shawn Medero
> Some "need a bit of hand-holding"; it's not clear that there's anybody
> that Chris W. I can just delegate to a la "take it away and get back
> to us when you get stuck". And I haven't managed to do the relevant
> training in the last couple weeks.
> Oddly, there's little overlap between that list and the people
> who did some work on 
> , including
> setting up a bugzilla product.
> I'm inclined to have a teleconference next Thursday, 7 June,
> to get synchronized a bit better. Or maybe just IRC office hours.
> I particularly want to talk about getting a test suite started.
> Anybody who is interested in a bit of a leadership role in
> managing issues and shaping email discussion, please let me
> and Chris W. know (preferably via the tasks survey...
> use
> "orientation: documenting group norms, helping people learn them"
> task for shaping email discussions.)

Received on Saturday, 2 June 2007 01:06:23 UTC