Re: Remarks on process and workload

We discussed this briefly at the end of this month’s call [52:58] - we ran out of time before coming to a conclusion.

Things mentioned included using an issue tracking system, github etc. extra calls, sub-groups preparing proposals, proposal owners, etc.

My concern is that we need a balance between having a process that will help in involved discussions (such as the current one around Article) but not get in the way of agile decisions for simpler stuff.

Perhaps we need a process that we should invoke if we believe we are about to start a complex issue, or one becomes complex.  When in such a process, the discussion should be easily accessible but not flooding the main list.

The W3C gives us two mailing lists, this one and 'public-schemabibex-contrib’, we could use that for detailed discussions which folks could tune out of f they wished.


~Richard

On 13 Dec 2013, at 14:31, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:


In general Dan, your doing good work,

Email sucks for this kind of communication and the kind of work and interaction that is needed.  Sometimes a physical room or virtual hangout or teleconference is what is required...with a whiteboard.

Holidays also have an impact on the timing and amount of feedback that folks can give.


+1 for all of this.

I won't say that the effort of aligning with comics was counter-productive. Far from it!
It's just the workload.

Maybe a concrete process improvement point: flag (shout!) versions of documents that are "stable and ready for comments" so that the people with less time know when they should focus their limited resource.

And please: change mail topics as often as possible. What (partly) makes long threads more inefficient is their keeping the same topic for a while, especially when only specific aspects are discussed... (this would also be an action on me, of course ;-) )

Cheers,

Antoine