Re: Re: Social Web WG agenda for 11 August 2015

Thanks Ann and Melvin for starting and chiming in on this conversation, respectively. I'm wondering two things:

1. Would be useful to make another classification of the existing user stories following Melvin's suggested schema: "what's implemented, near to implemented, or possible to implement". I'd add another category between 2 and 3: 'intend to implement, but haven't started'.


2. Should we use the meeting time today to discuss #1? If we decide to recategorize the user stories, we could also discuss how to best get the needed input from the WG.


Larry

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Larry Hawes, Principal
Dow Brook Advisory Services
E: larry@dowbrook.com
P: 978-238-8534







---- On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:50:43 -0400 Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote ---- 



On 19 August 2015 at 00:16, Bassetti, Ann <ann.bassetti@boeing.com> wrote:
   I understand what Aaron and others confirmed below, re: the "Entirely Positive" stories.
  
 I was asking about the stories classified as "Minor Objections" and more. I understood some months ago, it would be helpful if the IG worked through the set of minor objections, to see if we could resolve the objections.  In most cases, those objections hang on relatively minor nuances of language, or the ways in which those stories were written – which appear to be easily resolved with some discussion and modest re-writing.
  
 That's what we, the IG folks, were doing – hosting / facilitating discussion with the objectors, to see if we could resolve the objections. We had some really interesting discussions. But, we had some logistical problems, and not all objectors were in our meeting.  Thus, we suggested holding such discussions during the "off" weeks of the WG meeting time.
  
 We understand the WG is under pressure to deliver APIv1 by the end of this year and do not want to get in your way. At the same time, my understanding is that the IG has greater latitude to document a larger set of stories, vocabulary(s), etc – for future possibilities. Perhaps, for instance, you will want to use the "Minor Objection" stories for APIv2. If we can resolve the issues now, then they'd be ready when you need them.
  
 QUESTIONS: 
 A)     Would this useful, or not? 
 B)      If yes, is it helpful to meet during the WG's meeting time, on the 'off' weeks?  
 C)      What else could the IG be doing that would support the WG's work?




Thanks for helping with this.  Personally I have found the user stories a really valuable output from this group.  It's lead to thinking about the problem space in a more inclusive and interesting way.  Certainly for SoLiD, it's highlighted things that we'd like to do, and areas for development.


I think the voting should be taken as a guide, rather than, a straight jacket.  For example the sense of the majority of votes is over stated.  +1 was supposed to indicate intention to implement.  But if you go through the +1's id say in 90% of cases there's no evidence of implementation.  This is not intended as a criticism, but but to say that the voting should be indicative, rather than, definitive.


Similarly, some of the objections are systematically from individuals and groups that might not have the same capabilities as other technologies.  It would be a shame to put road blocks in the way of systems that can implement things, simply because, others cant.  Part of the reasoning behind the user stories imho was to provide a good cross section of functionality.


I find the approved / proposed / not approved buckets a false dichotomy.  I think it would be better to work on the basis of "rough consensus and running code".  In the sense of looking at what's implemented, near to implemented, or possible to implement.  I also think there should be a leaning towards implementing the social syntax that's progressing quite well in the form of activity streams.  

SoLiD has already shown it can handle activity streams in one user story.  Personally I'd like to see more.  Activity pump has indicated in the last call that by end of year there's a possibility of an implementation.  And amy has said she may implement AS2 as part of the indieweb community, with known also saying that if libraries are available they'd possibly be open to it.  Hopefully that's just a start.


In summary, I think it's useful to work through positive and negative votes, but bear in mind they are a guide.  And also start to prioritize focus on implementations using the other deliverables in the group.




  
 -- Ann
  
  
  
 Ann Bassetti
 The Boeing Company
 mobile:  +1.206.218.8039
 email:  ann.bassetti@boeing.com
  
  
  
  
  
    From: Aaron Parecki [mailto:aaron@parecki.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 7:43 AM
 To: Melvin Carvalho
 Cc: Bassetti, Ann; Social Web Working Group; Social Interest Group
 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