Re: Issue-19 questions remain

On 04/21/2015 11:09 PM, Bassetti, Ann wrote:
> I appreciate your points, Harry. Nor do I want to extend this issue ad nauseum.
> 
> Regardless, I don't understand how we use the wiki for **conversation**.  I love wikis for everyone writing and editing collaboratively. But it seems harder to use it for discussion.  Perhaps I just need education, such as:
> 

I think Tantek and others just prefer IRC for conversation. Henry
prefers email. However, that's just a working-style difference and not a
WG level issue.

> -- Is there a way for the wiki to send a notification when there is an update? Does that happen via the Watchlist? (Personally I find it hard to have to go look, randomly, for updates. That feels really unproductive.)
> 

We might be able to, although that would flood the mailing list. Thus,
it seems wiser to simply note major changes in the telecon.

> -- Should we agree to use the "Discussion" pages? 

We could, or just see the note re IRC.

> 
> Or is IRC the place for conversation?  It's great to use Loqi to tell! someone (who's not present) something. It's great that there are daily logs. 

Of course, the larger problem may be some people simply may not want to
discuss with each other, due to time constraints or fundamental
disagreements. Again, that's not a WG issue per se nor solvable by a
resolution. We cannot, for example, make a resolution saying "Tantek,
you have to spend whatever time it takes to agree with bblfish even
though you two disagree about how specs should be built."

That being said, I think the IG should volunteer to host a discussion
over Henry's stories.

I'd like to stick the WG to technical topics that are clear and
delimited rather than working style differences that are open-ended.

   cheers,
    harry

> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> I agree with Harry there is stuff that needs to be discussed. I understand there are differences of opinion. That's the hardest part of any human collaboration -- working through the differences.  
> 
> Appears to me we still have not actually achieved that goal.  But it's dang hard to smooth out those wrinkles without a good discussion medium.  I hope it will help to have a Face-to-Face meeting. 
> 
>   -- Ann
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Harry Halpin [mailto:hhalpin@w3.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:58 PM
>> To: public-socialweb@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Issue-19 questions remain
>>
>> This has taken up too much of our telecon time and I think it should remain
>> closed.
>>
>> I think in general folks should check the wiki for updates, and if people have
>> major updates they should bring them up to the telecon. The chairs have also
>> agreed to do so, as they watch, which is them going out of their way. There is
>> nothing else the chairs can do.
>>
>> Again, most other WG uses a mix of email, github, IRC, and a wiki without
>> having problems - and all of these channels have public logs.
>> So, it's easy to get in touch and to check what's happened.
>>
>> The charter mentions that we are using "Most of the technical work of the
>> group will be done through discussions on one of the group's public mailing
>> list and a list for public comments allows posts by anyone", however, 1) we
>> are still discussing on the mailing list and 2) most other WGs have the exact
>> same boilerplate in the charter *and* are migrating away from primarily
>> mailing-list discussions to using github and other technologies.
>>
>> I think the underlying problem is simple: Henry believes Tantek needs to
>> have more discussion in order to understand his user-story(ies), and he's
>> frustrated that Tantek doesn't answer his email. However, it seems that the
>> underlying fact is not that Tantek isn't checking his mail, it's that Tantek
>> doesn't agree with Henry's user-stories.
>>
>> That's an understandable frustration but as discussed with Wendy Seltzer
>> and W3C staff, there is no mechanism anywhere in W3C process that can
>> force someone to respond to email except (for now) the Last Call process
>> and Formal Objection process, which is not aimed at individuals but at the
>> WG as a whole. There is also no mechanism in W3C process to force
>> someone to agree with anyone, regardless of how many emails are sent.
>>
>> So thus, I suggest that the Social IG make a devoted telecon time for Henry's
>> use-cases and invite Tantek (he's in IRC, so he's easy to invite via IRC) and
>> Ann agreed. Hopefully you and Tantek can sort it out then and there at the
>> IG. Otherwise, I believe this is *off topic* for the WG at this point and the
>> issue should remain closed.
>>
>>    yours,
>>       harry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/21/2015 01:19 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
>>> I read that issue-19 was closed with the following resolution
>>>
>>> «  <tantek> RESOLVED: IRC and email and wiki are our canonical
>>> communication channels and if there are dropped balls we handled them
>>> as needed. For example, concern that not everybody was reading the
>>> mailing list which is fixed by bringing up things in the wiki. »
>>>
>>>    https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-04-14-minutes
>>>
>>> But that is not clear enough it seems. How does one bring things up in the
>> wiki? Does pasting the e-mail into the wiki help for example? Or should we
>> have a wiki page listing all the e-mails, and we just add a link from there to
>> the mail?
>>>
>>> I’ll assume for the moment that bringing things up in the wiki, means
>>> brining them up in the teleconf wiki. So I’ll add this as an extra
>>> issue for this evening
>>>
>>>    https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-04-21
>>>
>>>
>>> Henry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Social Web Architect
>>> http://bblfish.net/
>>>
>>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 21:22:44 UTC