RE: Process, Tracker and Bugzilla

OK on the wiki<http://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/ChangeProposalIndex>  you will find my partitioning of the 71 open issues in the tracker.

I have assigned myself as owner to 8 of the larger items (although I’m certainly open to handing any or all of them off to willing volunteers,) I’ve begun to flesh these out, some more completely than others., but I hope to get these all up and running before next Thursdays call.

There are 14 remaining unassigned items, some are fairly small and editorial in nature, and some are a little more meaty. We may not do all of these for 1.1, that depends on the manpower available. These all need owners, I will get round eventually to at least fleshing out the problem statement, but anyone who wants to leap in and preempt that please feel free too.

Please take a look and consider if any of the work packages is a good fit for your area of interest/expertise. Remember you don’t have to do all the work yourself, you just need to make sure we aren’t dropping stuff on the floor, but you will be taking responsibility to get somebody to do the work J.

Thanks,
Sean.

From: Sean Hayes [mailto:Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com]
Sent: 14 June 2013 07:42
To: Glenn Adams
Cc: public-tt@w3.org
Subject: RE: Process, Tracker and Bugzilla

Yes. I’m working on them right now. I’ll hopefully have them all up on the Wiki by EOD
The existing packages are:

HTML5 mapping (reference rendering)
TTML DOM API

Roughly the new ones are (not in any specific order):

3D extensions

Animation beyond set

Complexity model

Editorial cleanup

Metadata vocab

Profile fixes

Schema fixes

Audio rendering

Style.CSS additions

Style.Defaults

Style.Image additions

Style.Syntax fixes

Typography.Advanced

Typography.General

Typography.I18n

UX

XML fixes


Details to follow.

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
Sent: 14 June 2013 07:09
To: Sean Hayes
Cc: public-tt@w3.org<mailto:public-tt@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Process, Tracker and Bugzilla

Can you propose the initial set of components (work packages)?

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com<mailto:Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>> wrote:
All.

I am considering how we can better manage, and hopefully accelerate, our process a little in the run-up to TPAC when we may have to take on additional workloads incurred by a revised charter and WebVTT work..

I have been finding of late that the tracker software, while good for keeping track of action assignments, is not so good for actually maintaining our various specifications. I note that many groups have transitioned to using Bugzilla. In particular the WebVTT CG is doing so, and in anticipation of a smooth transition of their work items into our group, I therefore propose that we transition to Bugzilla, sooner rather than later to get used to the workflow.

In preparation for this, and to estimate a burn-down rate between now and November, I have been analyzing the open issues and I believe they fall into about a dozen major classes, which I’ll call for want of a better term work packages.  I’ll be following up later with this breakdown.

I propose with the groups consent to do the following:


1.      Have Philippe set us up with a bugzilla repository.

2.      Consolidate all of the existing issues into the broad work packages identified.

3.      Create a new straw-man change proposal/placeholder on the wiki for each work package which summarizes all of the issues related to that package.

4.      Have each work package be identified as a component for bug tracking purposes, as well as components for SDP, SE and 1.1

5.      Identify an owner for each work package (don’t all volunteer at once ☺)

6.      Close out all of the existing issues

7.      Register all new issues going forward as bugs in bugzilla.

Then as an ongoing process I would like to run each work package effectively as its own mini project using an Agile/Scrum like methodology, where the identified owner keeps up to date with the backlog for that work package, prioritizes the backlog; and defines iterations for the package of about 2 weeks with specific actions for the top work items from the backlog for that iteration, and at the end of each iteration we’ll transfer whatever we have at that point for each work package into the edit queue(s) for Glenn to process.

We will close out work packages as and when their backlog is cleared.

I’m opening this up for debate now, with a view to adopting this plan this at next week’s call. Silence will be deemed consent, however you are encouraged to actively voice approval if you agree.

I do not plan to debate this during the meeting, it will be a simple Go/No go decision. So if you have questions, or an issue with this plan please raise it in response to this email in advance of the meeting.

Thanks

Sean.