Re: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.

Toufic Boubez wrote:
> Prasad, Good rules, thanks.
> Editors,
> Could we have an editors call relatively soon? I'd like to get an
> understanding of how we're going to work together, and start
> distributing the workload. I'm not sure how many are traveling today
> after the adjournment (I know at least Maryann is), or tomorrow (I'm
> traveling in the afternoon). Can we get on the phone tomorrow morning?

do you want to establish a regular editor's call and use the zakim
bridge? If yes, please tell me the day / time / duration / occurrence
(like every week / every second week), and I can make the bridge
reservation.

Felix

> Any suggestions? Thanks!  --  Toufic
>  
> Toufic Boubez, Ph.D.
> Chief Technology Officer
>  
> LAYER 7 TECHNOLOGIES / Advancing the application network.
> 604.681.9377 x310 (w)   604.288.7970 (m)
> tboubez@layer7tech.com <mailto:tboubez@layer7tech.com> (e) 
> www.layer7tech.com <http://www.layer7tech.com/> (w)
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Prasad
>     Yendluri
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:16 PM
>     *To:* public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
>     *Subject:* Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.
> 
>     Folks,
> 
>      
> 
>     Here is what we had been doing to coordinate editing work with some
>     other efforts I had been involved with, that also use CVS:
> 
>      
> 
>        1. When issues get resolved editors accept ownership of a subset
>           of the issues based on their availability and ownership of the
>           pertinent area of the spec etc. People play good sport and
>           take turns to distribute the load evenly amongst all the folks
>           available.
>        2. Generally we have assigned ownership to a doc but not to a
>           subsection of the doc, to make sure a section does not suffer
>           due to unavailability of an editor. Also if an unreasonable
>           number of issues are scoped to a section, then the owner is
>           unfairly burdened etc.   
>        3. Taking ownership of the issues is typically done the editors
>           call (typically every 2 weeks 1 hour, immediately following
>           the WG call), after looking at the list of all closed issues
>           and AIs pending incorporation into the specs. We also decide
>           who goes first, who goes next etc. We also plan for a final
>           date for completing all the assigned tasks and how long each
>           one needs. We also send a note to the list with the details of
>           the above, so that everyone knows and *remembers* what they
>           agreed to etc.
>        4. Then when an editors starts work, the editor sends a note to
>           the editors list that he / she is claiming the “pen” for doc.
>           And when the pen is released, the editors list is notified
>           again, so that the next one in the list can pick up the pen.
>        5. This could seem complex process but, in my experience it has
>           proven to be very smooth and worked really well. It prevented
>           people from stepping on each other’s work or needlessly
>           waiting for others to complete their work, when no one was
>           really doing something etc.
>        6. In terms of tracking the changes in the doc, we made sure an
>           entry is added in the revision history table each time some
>           one checks-in a new version.  Each entry contains the identity
>           of the person that made the change, revision number (same as
>           CVS revision number), a brief description of the changes made
>           identifying the issue number, AI number etc. as applicable.
>             The revision history table is placed at the end of the
>           document. WSDL 2.0 has a god example of it.
>        7. Since we are editing an xml document, I have found it useful
>           to do a spell check and also to generate the HTML version and
>           review, prior to check-in.
>        8. BTW, how do we plan to track the issues list from the editors’
>           perspective? That is, which issues have been incorporated and
>           which issues are closed and pending application to the spec etc.? 
> 
>      
> 
>     Just some inputs for discussion.
> 
>      
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     Prasad
>