Re: User Stories problem

What I would recommend is separating the user stories by name. Evan can
have his proposed set and keep those separate from those prose by others.
If user stories are added by one person, they should not be edited by
another unless there is agreement to do so.
On Feb 7, 2015 11:40 AM, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <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/
>
>
>