W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-secondscreen@w3.org > November 2014

Re: Issue priorities

From: mark a. foltz <mfoltz@google.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:44:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CALgg+HHWbZo4LbLZ38xszH8N9jJFZE_OKYOuu2nMf_w_sFT6CQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Cc: "Rottsches, Dominik" <dominik.rottsches@intel.com>, "public-secondscreen@w3.org" <public-secondscreen@w3.org>, "public-webscreens@w3.org" <public-webscreens@w3.org>
Anssi,

Prioritization is a good idea as the number of issues has grown.  Here are
my opinions on some of the open issues.  My focus is on issues whose
resolution would impact and assist implementations in progress.  The P1
issues have a potentially wider impact on the API as well as the
implementation.

I welcome feedback on this categorization.

m.

P1
Allow page to designate a default presentation URL -
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/26

Specify behavior when multiple controlling pages are connected to the
session -
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/19

P2
Define return value for cancelled/missing session for
startSession/joinSession -
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/20

Specify data types and API for messaging channel -
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/16

Finalize specification for reconnecting to existing presentations -
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/15

Define reconnection for cross-page navigation on presenting user agent -
https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues/18



On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi <
anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Since we start to have a good list of issues [1], I'd ask the editor, with
> the help of the group, to take a first stab at assigning priorities to the
> issues. GH makes the priority setting easy using labels. To keep this
> simple, we could use:
>
> P1 = High
> P2 = Med
> P3 = Low
>
> I suggest the primary responsibility is on the editor to ensure the issue
> priorities reflect the group's consensus.
>
> To give more context, other labels (bug, duplicate, enhancement etc.)
> could be used in addition to P{1,2,3}.
>
> [Later on, we can create milestones that map to the standards track stages
> (First Public Working Draft, Last Call, Candidate Rec etc., see [2]) and
> associate the issues with the milestones.]
>
> I think this would help not only the group's current participants, but
> also new people who are still joining the group, to have a shared
> understanding of the priorities.
>
> I've documented this proposal in the Work Mode wiki at [3].
>
> All - comments and suggestions welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Anssi
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/presentation-api/issues
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#recs-and-notes
> [3] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Second_Screen/Work_Mode
>
Received on Friday, 21 November 2014 22:45:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:39:46 UTC