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

On 19 August 2015 at 16:30, Larry Hawes <larry@dowbrook.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

This may help:

https://github.com/w3c-social/social-ucr


>
> Larry
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Larry Hawes, Principal
> Dow Brook Advisory Services <http://www.dowbrook.com>
> E: larry@dowbrook.com
> P: 978-238-8534
>
> <http://www.dowbrook.com>
>
>
>
> ---- On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:50:43 -0400 *Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <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 <http://twitter.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>
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-11
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies -
> IBM Software Group
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>