Re: Google-code issue raising

I like the proposed way of working -- mailing lists are OK, and I am  
happy for issue list entries and discussion to be automatically CCed  
to public-owl-wg, but they are not very convenient for keeping track  
of a bunch of separate discussions centred around various issues,  
even with the benefit of threads. In the case of WebOnt, for example,  
we sometimes had to re-visit issues and proposed solutions, and it  
was often time consuming and sometimes even borderline impossible to  
fully reconstruct the earlier decision making process.

One additional thing that will be very useful is if the "owners" of  
each issue make sure that teleconf discussions of the issue are  
copied from the minutes into the issue tracker -- failure to do so  
might lead to similar difficulties w.r.t. reconstruction.

Regarding the Wiki, in the first place I expect this to provide a  
mechanism for authoring/editing the various documents that will make  
up our deliverables; the resolution of issues will, of course, be  
reflected here, but they are pretty much independent of the resolving  
process. In the second place, it may make sense to use the Wiki if  
the resolution process involves collaborative technical work, or if  
someone wants to set out a position/proposal in more detail than can  
be conveniently contained in an email.

Ian



On 12 Oct 2007, at 11:21, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:

> Hi Bijan,
>
> Thanks for the clarification! Sounds good enough ;)
>
> Perhaps my point (still) is that I don't really see where the W3  
> Wiki talk pages fit in. Ah well, we'll see how it goes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> 	Rinke
>
>
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> Hi Rinke,
>> On 12 Oct 2007, at 10:25, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:
>>> Hi Bijan, Alan, others,
>>>
>>> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>>> One question: It's possible to have someone CCed on issues. So  
>>>> we could have this list CCed whenever an issue is proposed or  
>>>> discussed. Should we make this our policy?
>>>
>>> I personally think some kind of notification system is a good  
>>> idea, and cc-ing to this list is probably the most convenient  
>>> solution, although an rss-feed would not be bad either.
>> I think the final solution probably should include both.
>>> My main concern is that I think we should try to keep the  
>>> discussion in a single place as much as possible. Having a  
>>> mailinglist, google code/wiki postings
>> There should be no google code *WIKI* postings. Only issue lists.
>
> Ok,
>>> and owl wiki talk discussions might be overdoing it a bit. Not  
>>> that I have a solution handy, but some policy regarding what goes  
>>> where might be nice...
>> The current policy as I proposed it is that if you find an issue  
>> you'd like to propose concerning the documents whether editorial  
>> or substantive, that you enter into the google code issue tracker.  
>> I would further suggests that comments on that issue be entered  
>> into the issue tracker as well. All this can be cced to public-owl- 
>> wg. If people want to have general discussion/clarificatory talk,  
>> they can do it on list with any important point being summarized  
>> back into the issues list comments. This way, we do have one  
>> definitely place where everything ends up.
>> This is pretty much how it's worked until now, except issues  
>> weren't cced to public-owl-dev. People (like me and alan) *would*  
>> take discussions that raised interesting issue from public-owl-dev  
>> and reflect them into the tracker.
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------
> Drs. Rinke Hoekstra
>
> Email: hoekstra@uva.nl   Skype:  rinkehoekstra
> Phone: +31-20-5253499    Fax:   +31-20-5253495
> Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.nl/users/rinke
>
> Leibniz Center for Law,         Faculty of Law
> University of Amsterdam,           PO Box 1030
> 1000 BA  Amsterdam,            The Netherlands
> ----------------------------------------------
> <hoekstra.vcf>

Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 15:44:06 UTC