Re: freezing the user stories

On 29 July 2015 at 18:21, Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> wrote:

> > Point of order.  I have not made any complaint about the minutes not
> being
> > posted.  I would invite you to retract that comment.
>
> You originally wrote "Yesterday there was a -1 and a -0.5. and I think a 0
> (minutes would help)" That parenthetical remark looked like a complaint
> about the minutes not being posted.
>

I hope you now can appreciate that there was no complaint made here, simply
a statement that the minutes would help.  I'd invite you to retract your
comment.


>
> > Apache have left the WG in recent times and cited this as a reason.
>
> No, Henry Story left the group. Apache as an organization made no such
> statement.
>

Point taken.  Henry Story was here on behalf of apache, he expressed that
sentiment, not the organization itself.  I am saddened by this, and feel
it's a big loss.


>
> > I appreciate that decision, hence my OP to provide a larger context.
>
> You still have not added any additional information that would justify
> reconsidering the resolution to rename this story. Your original email said
> "I had already announced I was attempting to implement it, and was told the
> user stories were frozen." which is literally recapping information that
> you had already given, not new information. Additionally, the user stories
> are already frozen, and have been ever since voting ended.
>

If the user stories are frozen, we should not be changing them.  Changing
the title is changing a user story.  It would be very difficult to argue
otherwise.

I appreciate the user stories are a guide and not a straight jacket, but
changes are a disincentive to implement.

In the case that a change is clear and unanimous, this is perhaps an
exception.  It wasnt in this case.

I also think anyone voting for a change should be prepared to implement the
whole thing.  It wasnt the case here.  I know IWC wasnt implementing all of
it.  We didnt really hear from activity pump other than the 0 vote.

I might not expect every person to read every post on the mailing list.
But when dealing with defining terms and aligning language, then looking at
the mailing list for related topics I would consider a minimum and then
responding there, before taking unilateral action.

If the user stories are frozen, let's not change them.

>
>
> You have had multiple people ask you directly how changing the *name* of
> the story could possibly affect your implementation, when none of the
> actual story content is changing, yet you have continued to ignore this
> request. I would suggest actually adding new information to this discussion
> if you wish to continue arguing it.
>

As I said I've already named my terms inbox etc.  In SoLiD we are using the
term inbox.  More helpful would be to define them between activity pump,
the more recent activity streams use of the term, the user story which
contains the term BOTH in the title and the text, and inbox is contained in
multiple other user stories.  I'm quite happy to come to a group consensus
on this, and reword things if it makes sense.


>
> ----
> Aaron Parecki
> aaronparecki.com
> @aaronpk <http://twitter.com/aaronpk>
>
> originally posted at http://aaronparecki.com/replies/2015/07/29/2/w3c
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 29 July 2015 at 17:04, Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Melvin,
>>>
>>> The minutes were posted on the wiki shortly after the conclusion of
>>> yesterday's call. You can always find the link to the minutes from the
>>> agenda page. Please check there before complaining the minutes are not
>>> posted.
>>>
>>
>> Point of order.  I have not made any complaint about the minutes not
>> being posted.  I would invite you to retract that comment.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You have been told in the past that it is fine that Tantek is not
>>> reading the mailing list.
>>> http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-03-10/line/1426011511341
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Apache have left the WG in recent times and cited this as a reason.  I
>> personally feel it's a big loss.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Additionally from Harry's email last time this came up, "there is no
>>> mechanism anywhere in W3C process that can force someone to respond to
>>> email except (for now) the Last Call process and Formal Objection process."
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Apr/0097.html
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for the pointer.  It continues to be an issue, IMHO.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Your -1 vote was overridden by the chair because the chair thought your
>>> -1 was due to a misunderstanding of the proposal, and you were not on the
>>> call to clarify your position. You were invited to join the next call if
>>> you have new information to add. That is documented in the minutes here
>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-28-minutes#override
>>>
>>
>> I appreciate that decision, hence my OP to provide a larger context.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Your current proposal to re-open the issue of renaming the story is
>>> un-founded. You have not provided any new information, which is required in
>>> order to re-open an issue. You have blatantly ignored repeated questions
>>> asking for clarification about *why* your implementation is affected by
>>> renaming the story.
>>>
>>> If you would like to contribute to this group, I would suggest adding
>>> some information from the SoLiD perspective to the brainstorming document
>>> where we are trying to get a sense of how to converge the approaches. So
>>> far nobody from the SoLiD perspective has stepped up.
>>> https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-APIs-Brainstorming
>>>
>>>
>> Thank you for your comments and  suggestion.
>>
>> My contribution was aimed to implement quite a difficult user story.
>>
>> I am unaware of any other effort to complete this user story in its
>> entirety.  My sense is that indieweb cant actually complete it, because
>> it's actually quite hard to get all the pieces together.  It took me about
>> one week to gather the data needed to set up all the scenarios.  If the
>> goal posts are simply going to change, I am much less inclined to put in
>> the work.
>>
>> My request to freeze the user stories still stands, as outlined in OP.
>>
>>
>>> ----
>>> Aaron Parecki
>>> aaronparecki.com
>>> @aaronpk <http://twitter.com/aaronpk>
>>>
>>> originally posted at http://aaronparecki.com/replies/2015/07/29/1/w3c
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Melvin Carvalho <
>>> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29 July 2015 at 12:59, Amy G <amy@rhiaro.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The minutes from this discussion are here:
>>>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-28-minutes#Rename_inbox_user_story
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for sharing the minutes.  I think it would be a incorrect to
>>>> think that changing the the title of the user story does have any effect on
>>>> the user story itself, because that's the framing, and gives the sense of
>>>> the whole user story.  It's a bit like saying changing the headline of an
>>>> article but keeping the text the same isnt changing it.  In SoLiD we
>>>> discussed implementing inboxes, and the reaction was positive.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I was a bit pushed for time yesterday (doing two things at once),
>>>> the proposer has said that this could be reponened with new information, I
>>>> hope I've articulated the reasoning in more detail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>