Re: User Stories problem

> On 7 Feb 2015, at 22:17, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

That is what I did with the « Following » user story.

The original story was of two employees following each other in the same social network.
Since the topology is built into the story there, it required other stories to show how other
topologies could be possible. So I put two extra examples there

A. Two CEOs following each other
C. A person moving into a neighborhood following a neighborhood groups

( True I added to the « Two employees story » the possibility that they were two employees
from newly merged companies - as that is a real use case that often popps up in M&A .
A distributed Social Web would allow M&A’s to happen smoothly. In fact it would
be so smooth, that some M&As would not need to happen, as companies could cooperate
very well without. Perhaps that should have been a fourth story leaving the initial one intact )

The advantage of having A and C in the same « following »  section is that it helps
the reader see how different topologies can be covered using the same protcols.

In any case the stories at present only scratch the surface of what is interesting in the Social Web.
The power of the Social Web only becomes apparent when one starts making topology
explicit. This is work that a french group called Virtual Assembly has put a lot of work 
demonstrating to me over the past year ( http://www.virtual-assembly.org/en/ ) They
are very interested in the Social Web because of the possibilities it presents in helping
various associations in France and in Europe to pool resources and work together.
The problem all these associations face currently is that they can’t easily work together without 
moving to centrlalised silos. And each group is working with tools on different silos, each time
they need to build up new social networks, etc… This makes co-operationg a nightmare.

The Social Web is interesting because it promises that all kinds of groups can work together easily -
be they associations, institutions, private companies, schools, libraries, universities, hospitals, etc.. etc…
This group has the potential to help make this a reality. It may seem like a difficult task to achieve,
but in fact we have all the tools to do this.

Henry

.  
> On Feb 7, 2015 11:40 AM, "henry.story@bblfish.net <mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net>" <henry.story@bblfish.net <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <mailto:evan@e14n.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 2015-02-05 07:51 AM, henry.story@bblfish.net <mailto: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/ <http://bblfish.net/>
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/