Re: User Stories problem

This proposal makes sense to me. I know one can track changes in a wiki, but it can get confusing. For me, at least, it would be easier to track who has which idea, to compare and contrast, to pick and choose, if they are kept in separate groupings.

I really appreciate the attention and effort Evan, Henry and elf have put in toward getting these user cases correct. I anticipate we might add a few corporate-type situations -- on our own new page, of course!

 -- Ann

Ann Bassetti
From: James M Snell
Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 1:19 PM
To: Henry Story
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee; public-socialweb@w3.org; Evan Prodromou
Subject: 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<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

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<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/