Re: freezing the user stories

The minutes from this discussion are here:
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-28-minutes#Rename_inbox_user_story

The user story was *not* changed, just renamed to make the name more
consistent with the contents of the user story (it was renamed from 'Inbox'
to 'Read social stream', and given that 'social stream' is mentioned in the
user story contents more times than 'inbox' this change seems sensible to
me). The contents of the story were not changed at all. Any implementation
of the steps described in the user story should not have been affected by
the name change.

If you use the name 'inbox' in your code, that's fine: an implementation
detail. If you use 'inbox' in your UI, that's also a totally reasonable
implementation detail. If the actual functionality of your implementation
is dependant on the story being called 'inbox', could you give more details
how? Again, the requirements outlined in the story are the same.
Implementations should be of those requirements.

My understanding is that to -1 a proposal on a telecon, you should be
prepared to dial into the call to better explain your position, rather than
relying on IRC.

On 29 July 2015 at 11:41, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

> I was under the impression that the work on the user stories was frozen
> and that the focus now was on implementations.
>
> This is not the case.
>
> Yesterday there was a proposal to change one of the user stories, in fact
> it was the user story that had the most consensus out of all 90 (15 +1s)
>
> I am  against this change, not least of which because I had already
> announced I was attempting to implement it, and was told the user stories
> were frozen.
>
> I propose to reject this change and there should be changes to the user
> stories under the following sensible conditions:
>
> 1. If it goes to a vote, the vote should be unanimous.
>
> Yesterday there was a -1 and a -0.5. and I think a 0 (minutes would help)
>
> 2. The proposer of a change should have or be implementing the user story
> *in its entirety*
>
> I dont believe any of the people voting for the change are implementing it
> *it its entirety* only partially.  I have several GB of setup data on my
> hard drive preparing to create all the steps of this story, I now am
> starting to feel my time could be better spent doing other things.
>
> 3. The proposer must be prepared to follow the mailing list and related
> discussions.
>
> In this case the proposer (also a chair) has refused to follow the mailing
> list, and so, we dont have a good record in our official communication flow
> of arguments for and against.  Is it even allowed under W3C WG rules for a
> chair not to read the ML?
>
> Please could we freeze the user stories, going forward unless there is
> unanimous consent.
>