Re: User Stories problem

I've asked the other chairs to take a look at the situation and figure 
out how to proceed.

-Evan

On 2015-02-07 02:39 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
> Dear Social Web Wg,
>
> I would like Evan Prodromou to stop trying to build his prejudices
> of what a correct API is into the user stories.
>
> I spent quite a lot of time this afternoon adding stories that
> brought in more clearly the distributed nature of what the
> Social Web should be.  We had consensus on this in an earlier post [1].
> The version I worked on was here:
>
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories&oldid=81085
>
> But right after this version of the wiki Evan decided to undo ALL my changes as you can
> see in this history:
>
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories&action=history
>
> He then moved some of the stories that don't fit his closed model to another section entitled
> "Additional user stories" . Why is a cross organisational following not fit under "Following" ?
> Why is that another user story?
>
> Why did he remove the longer General Developer Story I put up here:
>
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories&oldid=81085#General_social_network_client
>
> The version I am now looking of the wiki is this one
>
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories&oldid=81105
>
> Why are there "Proposed" User stories and then "Additional" Ones? Are the ones
> Evan proposes officially proposed and the other ones there to be ignored?
>
> Frankly I thought we had consensus that the social web has to be distributed, and that the
> distinction should not appear in the user stories.
>
> Henry
>
> [1] Original post
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Feb/0040.html
> Content of post:
>
>> On 5 Feb 2015, at 17:42, Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-02-05 07:51 AM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
>>> we dont' want to do that in the user stories ... they have to be implementation independent at this point ...
>> +1
>>> let's try to stay on focus on the mailing list, and if people want to have more technical discussions about plumbing, that's off topic for the WG and you can do that in the IG ]]
>> Not quite. They're fine conversations to have, and this is the venue for talking about technical discussions.
>>
>> But they're confusing when we're talking about user stories.
>>> So we should have user stories for the social web. Later we can decide wether we need one or two or three of 50 apis. Can we construct a consensus on this?
>> I agree!
>>
>> -Evan
>>
>>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>

Received on Saturday, 7 February 2015 20:00:14 UTC