RE: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.

Sounds good to me. Could we still spend a bit of time before the next
call in order to get organized and start the work on the current items?
--  Toufic
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Asir Vedamuthu [mailto:asirveda@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:17 PM
To: Maryann Hondo; Felix Sasaki
Cc: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org; Toufic Boubez
Subject: RE: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.



	Here is a proposal: meet for 30 minutes after the WG conference
call. Thoughts?

	 

	I suggest that we think about parallel execution (instead of
locking files and releasing them).

	 

	I added change logs to both the framework and attachment
documents.

	 

	Regards,
	 
	Asir S Vedamuthu
	
	

	
________________________________


	From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Maryann Hondo
	Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:02 AM
	To: Felix Sasaki
	Cc: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org;
public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org; Toufic Boubez
	Subject: Re: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.

	 

	
	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
	>