RE: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.

I suggest that we have a call on Monday. How about 11 AM PST?
 

________________________________

From: Maryann Hondo [mailto:mhondo@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:10 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: Felix Sasaki; 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.

 


Well, 
I actually would prefer a separate time slot as 2 hours is already a
pretty big hit on time. 
I was hoping we could have a call tomorrow, but if everyone is
travelling is is possible to have a call on Monday? 
Maryann 




"Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org 

07/13/2006 03:25 PM 

To

"Toufic Boubez" <tboubez@layer7tech.com>, Maryann
Hondo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org> 

cc

<public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org> 

Subject

RE: Thoughts on how to coordinate CVS work etc.

 

 

 




Yes, I agree. 
  

 

________________________________


From: Toufic Boubez [mailto:tboubez@layer7tech.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:24 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu; Maryann Hondo; Felix Sasaki
Cc: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
Subject: 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
>