Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Next Telco Agenda and How to raise issues for the HNTF

Russell, all,
my take on this

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:42:23 +0200, Russell Berkoff  
<> wrote:

> Hello,
> Thanks for your comments. I agree with most of the "workarounds"  
> suggested by others.
> However, don’t know what the preferred procedure for submitting  
> issues/comments on submitted use-cases. For now I just added notes to  
> the original Use-case tracker-issues for lack of a more workable process.

When it comes to comments, several options are possible (and all can be  
used); I expect most of the discussion to happen over phone/mail; in both  
cases the author of the proposal is responsible to reflect the comment  
back to his/her document (maintained on the wiki). You will be able to see  
the changes applied at any time and roll them back if needed. If the  
discussion happen over email remember to keep the original issue number in  
the subject. If you prefer, you can also open a new issue (for example  
because you want to discuss something that cover more submitted documents).

The latest "state" of the discussion should always be reflected in the  
documents on the wiki (and eventually in the requirement document); email,  
meeting notes etc are just support facilities but if something is not  
reflected in the actual proposal will probably get lost.

> I think when there are many more interlinked use-cases and associated  
> comments it will become difficult to maintain and organize the TF  
> materials. It will be difficult to re-organize these materials  
> after-the-fact.
> Many SDOs use M$ Word  since it supports both comments and change-text  
> tracking.I believe OpenOffice would allow comparable access for non-M$  
> users.

You can achieve something similar with the Wiki, even though will be less  
For change tracking you can either edit the original text or create a new  
wiki page from the original text and then apply your comments, after that  
you can send a link showing the diffs between the two versions
(check the "History" section)

I recognize that these tools may be a bit less easy-to-use. I exclude the  
possibility to use MS office (since not all people have it), but if people  
feel like using Open Office we can go for it,
even though I think with a bit more effort you can achieve the same result  
with the wiki.

> Also Web Sharing tools like GoToMeeting, LiveMeeting are fairly  
> effective in reviewing submissions and submitted comments.
We can use  Live Meeting or similar tools during our calls, that's not a  
problem, if someone can host it. I would prefer tools that have a good  
cross platform support: i.e. between the two you mention I would go for  
Livemeeting (GoToMeeting only runs on windows). WebEx seems to be even  
better (when it comes to cross-platform support) but I've never tried it.

Use of other tools (that you mentioned in another mail thread) would  
require the W3C to set-up them (and probably pay for them) so is not  
something I can directly comment on;

> My understanding these decisions are left to the TF Chairs.
The IG and this TF are very open and democratic groups,following the  
spirit of W3C. In order for the work to proceed, I proposed and will  
propose how to organize our work, but if the group feel different nothing  
is written in stone.


> Just my .02 €.
> Regards,
> Russell Berkoff
> Samsung Electronics
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clarke Stevens []
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 5:26 AM
> To: Giuseppe Pascale; Russell Berkoff
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Next Telco Agenda and How to raise issues  
> for the HNTF
> I think most of Russell's concerns can be handled by having separate  
> files per use case and establishing some conventions for tagging files.  
> Maybe Russell can suggest some conventions and see if that works.
> -Clarke
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [mailto:public-web-and-tv-
>>] On Behalf Of Giuseppe Pascale
>> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 6:03 AM
>> To: Russell Berkoff
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Next Telco Agenda and How to raise
>> issues for the HNTF
>> Hi Russell,
>> see inline
>> On 21/04/11 09.02, Russell Berkoff wrote:
>> > Hello HNTF Chairs,
>> >
>> > I have some concerns about the organization of the use-case process:
>> >
>> > 1.It appears Tracker is the only "Index" to submitted use cases.
>> > Otherwise, it appears necessary to "sift-through" the discussion
>> > area to separate use-cases from other HNTF discussions. It is
>> > difficult to determine the status of a particular use-case from the  
>> discussion section.
>> >
>> Fine by me. Using the wiki allows us to change this in the way we like,  
>> easily.
>> We can create subsections on the same page or different pages or
>> whatever works better for us.
>> I can try to organize that section better, but feel free to draft a
>> new structure yourself and we can discuss it during next telco (or
>> over mail)
>> > 2.The bundling of multiple uses cases within a single package seems
>> > problematic. What is status of the bundle? Is it approved as  
>> all-or-none.
>> >
>> In my opinion each use case should be a separate submission. Consider
>> that the documents currently on the wiki pre-date our use of tracker,
>> the submission procedures etc.
>> I believ Jean-Claude has already started to split his usecases, others
>> will have to do the same.
>> > 3.Tracker does not clearly separate use-case submissions from
>> > use-case issues.
>> >
>> > 4.How do I locate all open tracker issues against a particular  
>> use-case?
>> >
>> There could be some limitations in tracker and in the current proposed
>> approach and I'm open for suggestions.
>> Personally I don't believe this is a big issue though.
>> As stated in other discussions, W3C culture is usually a bit more
>> informal and mail oriented than other groups.
>> So in my view having one issue per usecase and all the discussion for
>> that usecase as a related mailthred should be enough.
>> The submitter is responsible to follow the discussion and update the
>> contribution. The latest version (and the hisotry of changes) will
>> always be available on the wiki. Before approval people will be able
>> to check that version.
>> So, in short, I think we can work with the tools we have. If needed we
>> can give ourselves additional rules, like using additional tags to
>> differenciate contributions or create other products or subproducts
>> (if
>> possible) in track, but honestly I think this is overkil for now.
>> Once again, if the group feel different about this we can adapt our  
>> process.
>> What is other participants opinion?
>> /g
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Russell Berkoff
>> >
>> > Samsung Electronics
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From:
>> > [] On Behalf Of Giuseppe
>> > Pascale
>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:40 AM
>> > To:
>> > Subject: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Next Telco Agenda and How to raise issues
>> > for the HNTF
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I created a wiki page with a draft agenda for the next Telco
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > just not to forget anything we postponed from the last telco.
>> >
>> > I'll try to do this for each telco if people think this is useful.
>> >
>> > Feel free to propose any addition to it.
>> >
>> > Note the first point in the agenda "Open issues and actions" with a
>> > link to this page
>> >
>> > <>
>> >
>> > I would suggest this to be the first agenda point for each call.
>> >
>> > This also mean that your are encouraged to:
>> >
>> > - "raise an issue"[1] whenever you have an important point to make
>> > on any of the deliverables (and want this to be tracked easily)
>> >
>> > - raise an issue for the existing proposals, as discussed during the
>> > call and explained here
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If you have any comment or question, please let me know.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Giuseppe Pascale
>> >
>> > TV & Connected Devices
>> >
>> > Opera Software - Sweden
>> >

Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software - Sweden

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 11:06:55 UTC