Re: Social Web WG agenda for 11 August 2015

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
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies -
> IBM Software Group
>
>
>
>
>