Re: User Stories problem

I've added a number of entries to the proposed developer use cases. These 
are all prefixed with "Integration : "  as they typically reflect the 
integration of existing or planned applications with separately provided 
Social capabilities, so it's possible that these could go into their own 
section. I could have added 20 integration use cases to be honest as this 
is where I've seen the most urgent requirements, which brings me to . . . 
..

One thing I would like to discuss at the next meeting is who is the actual 
consumer of the APIs. The vast majority of the use cases reflect the base 
workings of a 'Social Platform'. An API for these is both useful in terms 
of producing a variety of clients (and especially for mobile) and expected 
for many integrations, but it seems to me that priority could be given to 
use cases  where there is a likely interaction between two separate 
systems. In many cases this will be just a 'slant' on a use case, but I 
think it will affect the discussion

For example -
Like (Base feature) => [API] Like-object, [Implicit] distribution to 
Activity Stream
Like (Integration) =>  As above plus . . .  [API] 
Is-object-currently-liked-by-current-user, [Data model] communicating 
visual representation of object, [Functionality] communicating 
access-control

Much of the above comes up as soon as federation is mentioned regardless, 
but not necessarily all.

I haven't added this to the agenda, as I can discuss it as part of the IBM 
Connections item (where a lot of this feedback comes from),
Rgds,
-Bill.

_________________________________________
Bill Looby
Software Architect, Dublin Software Lab, IBM Ireland
IBM UK & Ireland Technical Staff Member
Phone (Internal) : 515129
Phone (External) : +353 1 8155129
_________________________________________
IBM Ireland Product Distribution Limited registered in Ireland with number 
92815.  Registered office: IBM House, Shelbourne Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 
4.



From:   Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
To:     "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
Date:   09/02/2015 19:53
Subject:        Re: User Stories problem



It's a good idea to have an "owner/contributor" on all the user stories so 
that we know where it initially came from. 

For the vote, as an example of what we can do, have a look at what the RDF 
Data Shapes WG is doing for its requirements: 
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements 
Votes are capture on a line for each story, with WG member add a +1, 0, 
-1. If one objects, they need to add a comment with an explanation. It's 
been working well so far. 

Per last week's discussion, in this case we would like people who vote to 
also indicate whether they plan to implement or use the functionalities 
related to the story they are voting on. 

Once we have the votes in, we should be able to quickly sort out the 
stories that are non-controversial from the rest. We can then discuss the 
objections. 

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - IBM 
Software Group


"henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 02/09/2015 
02:48:34 AM:

> From: "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net> 
> To: Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com> 
> Cc: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org> 
> Date: 02/09/2015 02:49 AM 
> Subject: Re: User Stories problem 
> 
> 
> > On 9 Feb 2015, at 04:16, Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Having to get the user stories done in one week, ( and delimiting 
> that with a move
> to a vote ) is of course putting a lot of pressure and hence tension
> into the process 
> of writing  them down. That should be expected when rushing things....
> 
> None the less, at present the user stories are as shown here, and I 
> am feeling reasonably
> happy about them.
> 
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Social_API/
> User_stories&oldid=81176
> 
> It now has 7 major sections:
> 
> ? Approved user stories ( eg. SWAT0 )
> ? Proposed contexts 
>    These are links to other pages. I think a discussion of context 
> is interesting, 
>    though it may need filling in, and we would need to add other p2p
> and inter company 
>    contexts too. I have tried to build some user stories where the 
> contexts are 
>    made more explicit.
> ? Proposed Basic User Stories
>    These are user stories taken from the current raft of social 
networks.
>    I moved the text Evan added recently about these being meant to 
> be read independently 
>    of where the data or the users are to here.
> ?  Proposed co-operation stories
>    These are stories that bring the co-operative nature of the 
> Social Web to the foreground
> ?  Proposed developer stories
>    These kind of make it clear that one can write one's own non html
> based clients.
> ? Proposed New Economy Stories
> ? W3C Group Collaboration Stories
> 
> In my view with some clean up this could be the basis for a user 
> stories document, which
> will certainly help the group focus on where it is going, and why it
> is doing things.
> As it is the stories do not make any technical decisions about how 
> the social web should
> be built, what technology they should use, or what types of APIs are 
needed.
> 
> They do emphasise that they should be inter organisational and that 
> it is the data and the APIs
> that are being standardised.
> 
> > 
> > -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> 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" 
> <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/
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Social Web Architect
> >> http://bblfish.net/
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
>