Re: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.

Just FYI:

I don't intend to participate in the editor's calls. I don't think that
you need help from the team contact for editing issues on a regular
basis. If you need immediate (e.g. technical) help: Just ping me on IRC
or mail me.

Felix


Maryann Hondo wrote:
> 
> That would be good for me.
> 
> Maryann
> 
> 
> *Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>*
> Sent by: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
> 
> 07/13/2006 11:20 AM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	Toufic Boubez <tboubez@layer7tech.com>
> cc
> 	public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
> Subject
> 	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
>>
> 
> 
>