Re: Process, Tracker and Bugzilla

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

> I suggest not adding another section in the bugtracker for WebVTT. I'd
> prefer we continue using the current one and sharing that with the CG.
> Since the CG will continue working, that will make for an easier way to
> collaborate.


I didn't intend that a new product for VTT be created now, but simply look
forward to a possible need if VTT work is brought into the TTWG.


>
>
> Silvia.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>> I would like a courser grained partition, as it is often confusing for
>> folks to determine which bucket applies. We also need to account for
>> possible addition of VTT work.
>>
>> BZ divides the world into Product and Component. So I'd suggest we have a
>> small number of Products, such as:
>>
>> TTML
>> WebVTT
>>
>> For components for the TTML product, I would suggest the following:
>>
>> Animation
>> Layout
>> Metadata
>> Other
>> Parameters
>> Processing
>> Profiles
>> Schemas
>> Specification
>> Styling
>>
>> There is also a third sub-division, Version, so for the
>> TTML/Specification component, we could have:
>>
>> 1.0
>> 1.0SE
>> Next
>>
>> I think this should be adequate to start, then we can sub-divide further
>> if needed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  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
>>> *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>
>>> 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 J)****
>>>
>>> 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.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>
>>
>