Re: IG to help resolve objections on user stories

Melvin,

We've already votes to add two groups of user stories here:

https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Approved_user_stories

We've got an agenda item to discuss what "approved" means for next 
week's telecon. From my point of view, it means "API proposals should 
satisfy these user stories, or have a very good reason not to."

-Evan

On 2015-08-25 04:29 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> On 26 August 2015 at 01:01, Bassetti, Ann <ann.bassetti@boeing.com 
> <mailto:ann.bassetti@boeing.com>> wrote:
>
>     Greetings Social IG folks --
>
>     In the Social WG meeting today, I asked to discuss whether or not
>     it is useful for the IG to work on clarification of Social API
>     voting objections
>
>     You can read the minutes here:
>     https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-25-minutes#Social_API_user_stories
>
>     To me, the first part of the discussion was confusing. In reality
>     I think Evan, Tantek and I were all agreeing, although we had
>     different ways we were saying the words. If someone thinks we were
>     each voicing different views, I'd really appreciate hearing about it.
>
>     I believe the conclusion is as follows (read the latter part of
>     the minutes):
>
>     A) It would be helpful for the IG to help resolve questions /
>     concerns / issues with the user stories.
>     B) It would also be helpful for us to identify the user stories
>     that seem like they would be easiest to bring into full consensus
>     (e.g., the objections would be pretty easy to resolve).
>     C) We should ping the individual WG objectors, to pull them into
>     conversations on their particular objections.
>     D) As we resolve issues on stories, we should report back to the
>     WG with proposals of user stories -- perhaps slightly re-written
>     -- to be accepted.
>     E) ... anything else?
>
>
> Ann, I think this is useful, and thanks for taking it on.
>
> I'm not sure how to come to consensus, or even if it's possible, but I 
> suspect it would be useful.
>
> I like the framing of "entirely positive" and "minor objections".  I 
> dislike the framing of "approved", "proposed", because it doesnt seem 
> to make a whole lot of sense.  As I understand it user stories are not 
> a deliverable of the WG.
>
> I'd be against framing a social API based on "approved" user stories, 
> simply because a single user would be able to have veto power over the 
> whole basis of the API.  In practice, we've seen this kind of 
> systematic voting.
>
> Once again, voting should be a guide.  Implementations must count for 
> something, especially as time goes on, and implementations using the 
> WG deliverables, moreso.
>
>
>     I have a lot of handwritten notes on my printout of the User Story
>     voting, with I intend to start sifting through.
>
>     Tomorrow (8/25) is an off-week for our meetings. Regardless, I
>     will be online and dialed into WebEx, if anyone wants to chat.
>
>       -- Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>