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.
> 
If « by name »  you mean « by topic name » then yes, see my previous e-mail.

If « by name »  you mean « by proposer », as you seem to indicate below, then I don’t 
really like that idea.  That ends up pushing people to vote by allegiances to someone 
rather than by the value of the story. Also it means that stories that are very close together
end up far apart, so that their similarities cannot be seen clearly and leading to cognitive overload.
In any case voting, should be considered something more like a straw poll, to help  open a debate.

Remember that the coming Tuesday is meant to be the deadline for Stories. I did suggest 
in the last teleconf. that  having only one week to write the stories, was very very short.
 
> 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.
> 
I think having stories organised by general topics makes sense. The names of those 
who propose it should be removed - it seems pretty irrelevant. If people think that a
story is not relevant there should be arguments put forward as to why they think so.

I agree that one should not making edits that change the direction of the story. 

Henry Story
http://bblfish.net/


> 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/