Re: revoting on changed user stories

Just want to add that "Read Social Stream" is an incorrect name because
part of the user story is adding a friend request.  A request is not the
act of reading, it's the act of writing / sending.  Implementing such an
action *requires* a place to send the request to in a distributed way,
which is what I had been calling inbox.  Im all for nailing down what inbox
means in the different contexts, but this use case is not only about
reading, it's reading and writing.

On 1 August 2015 at 16:47, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

> Two issues here.
>
> 1. User stories consist of a title a url and a description.  There are
> some in this group arguing that changing the title of a user story is not
> changing user story.  It should be clear that this is not the case.  To
> illustrate this point, consider renaming SWAT0 to the "Microblogging User
> Story".  This would be a much more accurate name, since it was developed
> for the original "open micro blogging".  It would be impossible to argue
> that this is not a change.  I should think this is self evident, but if we
> have to spend time debating this, so be it.
>
>
> 2. Once a user story is change, what is the next step.  Voting should be
> reopened on the new user story for a period of time.  I suggest 2 weeks,
> maybe 3 weeks if that suits better, as some people are on vacation in
> august.  In fact in some user stories, there are specific objections to the
> title.  After the new voting is closed it can then be put the correct
> bucket.
>
>
> In general im against changing the user stories, because it slows us down
> unnecessarily, when IMHO the focus should be on interop, the social api and
> implementations.  But if it's going happen, we need to have a process.
>
>
>
>