- From: Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
- Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 22:16:32 -0500
- To: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <54D82690.6080409@e14n.com>
The point of this page is that we're going to start voting on user stories on Tuesday. Having alternative paths or groupings makes it hard to put +1/-1 votes next to each user story you need and want to implement. -Evan On 2015-02-07 06:19 PM, Bassetti, Ann wrote: > Hmmm, good points Henry... which I read immediately after sending my > previous note. > > Although I like the convenience of tracking, by having submissions > initially separate -- I was envisioning we might later be able to > group stories into larger categories. Perhaps that's harder to do. > > I agree that next Tuesday feels too short for concluding the user > stories. I'm sympathetic to the Chairs' efforts to move this along. > But appears we're finding the user stories to be harder to untangle > than expected. > > Too bad we aren't having the F2F sooner than March 17! Might be easier > to slog through this in person. > > -- Ann > > Ann Bassetti > *From: *henry.story@bblfish.net > *Sent: *Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:05 PM > *To: *James M Snell > *Cc: *Tim Berners-Lee; public-socialweb@w3.org; Evan Prodromou > *Subject: *Re: User Stories problem > > > >> On 7 Feb 2015, at 22:17, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com >> <mailto: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 >> >> 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/ >> >> > > Social Web Architect > http://bblfish.net/ > >
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 03:16:56 UTC