Re: Revamping Flags

Got it. Thanks. J


----------------------------
julee@adobe.com
@adobejulee

From:  Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
Date:  Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:51 AM
To:  julee <julee@adobe.com>, Clay Wells <cwells73@gmail.com>
Cc:  Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>,
WebPlatform Community <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Subject:  RE: Revamping Flags

Hi Julee.
 
Yes, attribution should be set during import, but on first review of the
pages, we should make sure that attribution really did get set via whatever
mechanism was used to import. If it¹s just marked as Needs Review, the
assumption would be that only the content needs to be verified as complete
and accurate. We are pretty good about telling people not to touch the
attribution. A little editorial note would help that.
 
Thanks,
 
E
 

From: Julee [mailto:julee@adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:46 AM
To: Eliot Graff; Clay Wells
Cc: Chris Mills; Doug Schepers; WebPlatform Community
Subject: Re: Revamping Flags
 

Hi, Eliot: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "needs attribution".
Shouldn't the attribution be set at the time of import? Thanks. J

 
 

----------------------------

julee@adobe.com

@adobejulee

 

From: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:40 AM
To: Clay Wells <cwells73@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>,
WebPlatform Community <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Revamping Flags

 

Thanks, Clay.
 
I¹d be happy collapsing Unconfirmed Import into Needs Review for donated
content, as long as we also use the editorial notes to indicate that the
topic is new and donated‹and needs attribution. I think you¹re correct; that
last point is the only real difference.
 
Cheers.
Eliot 
 

From: Clay Wells [mailto:cwells73@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:28 AM
To: Eliot Graff
Cc: Chris Mills; Doug Schepers; WebPlatform Community
Subject: Re: Revamping Flags
 

IMHO, the following are pretty much the same thing:

Unconfirmed import (Specifically for content donated but yet to be reviewed)
Needs review (for changes/additions to be buddy-checked)

I'm a little confused what the difference would be.?

 

Cheers,

Clay

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> 
> I like the ideas here, and I would argue for the following set of flags:
>  
> Unconfirmed import (Specifically for content donated but yet to be reviewed)
> Needs review (for changes/additions to be buddy-checked)
> Missing Content (rather than missing examples, with notes to indicate what
> content is missing)
> Deletion/Move candidate (with notes to indicate details)
> Contains Errors (with notes to details)
>  
> I think these cover the central concerns in a way that is abstracted enough to
> contain most needs. We can use the editorial notes and develop a syntax that
> is readable and intuitive:
>  
> MISSING CONTENT (3 August 2013): no description of x parameter.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Eliot
>  
> 
> From: Clay Wells [mailto:cwells73@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:07 AM
> To: Chris Mills
> Cc: Doug Schepers; WebPlatform Community
> Subject: Re: Revamping Flags
> 
>  
> 
> In response to both... +1
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Clay
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org> wrote:
>> Yeah, couldn't agree more.
>> 
>> I reckon 4 or 5 is about the most we should have, keep things simple and
>> unimposing.
>> 
>> Maybe a 4th flag along the lines of "Needs corrections/details adding", if
>> inaccuracies or missing details have been found, either during the review, or
>> just by a casual observer. Some details could then be left in the editorial
>> notes block.
>> 
>> Chris Mills
>> Opera Software, dev.opera.com <http://dev.opera.com>
>> W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org <http://webplatform.org>
>> Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)
>> 
>> 
>> On 25 Jun 2013, at 10:13, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> > Hi, folks-
>>> >
>>> > We've had many people report that they are discouraged, intimidated, and
>>> confused by the current set of flags.
>>> >
>>> > Julee and I discussed this when I was giving her the rundown of the recent
>>> Seattle Doc Sprint, and we think perhaps we should remove most of the flags.
>>> >
>>> > We propose the following 3 flags (for now):
>>> > 1) Unconfirmed Imported Content: for MSDN or other automated content
>>> >
>>> > 2) Needs Review: general purpose, for people who want to review of the
>>> content they've changed, or people who want to flag something as odd
>>> >
>>> > 3) Needs Examples: For pages where the examples aren't up to snuff, or no
>>> examples exist. (In writing this email, it occurs to me that we could also
>>> add flags for each of the WPW tasks, but I haven't thought deeply about it.)
>>> >
>>> > I propose that we discuss the flags on this thread for the next week, then
>>> next week, we change the templates to remove most of the flags.
>>> >
>>> > Changes to the visible style will be done later.
>>> >
>>> > Regards-
>>> > -Doug
>>> >
>