Re: Social Web WG agenda for 11 August 2015

Thanks Aaron for digging this up.

As I was saying on the call this is a good starting point for a first 
version anyway. If people want to go beyond that they are certainly free 
to do so for experimentation purposes.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> wrote on 08/12/2015 07:42:54 AM:

> From: Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com>
> To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Bassetti, Ann" <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>, Social Web Working 
> Group <public-socialweb@w3.org>, Social Interest Group <public-
> social-interest@w3.org>
> Date: 08/12/2015 07:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Social Web WG agenda for 11 August 2015
> 
> Ben clarified this during the call, and I dug up a permalink for the
> previous resolution. We had agreed to approve all the stories that 
> had *only* +1 votes, since by having no 0's or -1, nobody was even 
> doubting them. 
> 
> http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-08-11#t1439315941741
> 
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-12-minutes#approve-all-
> plus-one-user-stories
> 
> ----
> Aaron Parecki
> aaronparecki.com
> @aaronpk
> 
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Melvin Carvalho 
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> 
> On 11 August 2015 at 09:58, Bassetti, Ann <ann.bassetti@boeing.com> 
wrote:
> Hi Social Folks --
> 
> I just entered my regrets into the wiki, for tomorrow's WG meeting. 
> I'm hoping this will be the last week I'm out. (Been working really 
> hard  on my 94-year-old Mom's house, and with home health care 
> providers, seeking as many assistive options as we can think of, so 
> she can continue to live independently.)
> 
> One idea we had in the Social IG meeting a couple weeks ago, was to 
> use the Social WG  'off' week meeting times, to meet with WG folks 
> (whoever we can get to show up) -- to try and talk through the 
> objections on various user stories. Many of the ones with 'minor' 
> objections seem based in nuance of language, about how the story was
> written -- more than objection to the fundamental concept of the story.
> 
> Although we've had some really interesting discussions within the 
> IG, and with a couple WG 'objectors' attending, it seems clear we 
> need more WG involvement in these discussions.
> 
> If the WG A) still thinks it would be useful to work through the 
> user story objections; and, B) thinks it would be OK to use the 
> alternating 'off' weeks for such discussion -- I will set it up for 
> next Tuesday.
> 
> Hi Ann

> The question of approved user stories was raised in yesterday's 
> meeting.  Evan said that he seemed to recall that all the +1 user 
> stories and the +1/0 user stories might be considered approved.  We 
> weren't 100% sure on the call, I think a couple of people said they 
> would check back on this.  Seems a reasonable approach.  Also note a
> few of the user stories now have existing implementations.

>  
> 
> I'm looking forward to getting back to this!
> 
>  -- AnnB
> 
> Ann Bassetti
> The Boeing Company
> 
> From: Arnaud Le Hors
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 11:58 AM
> To: public-socialweb@w3.org
> Subject: Social Web WG agenda for 11 August 2015
> 
> Now available:
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-11
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web 
> Technologies - IBM Software Group
>