Re: [wbs] response to 'EOWG Weekly Survey - 29 June 2015'

Hi Kevin,

On 3.7.2015 09:36, Kevin White wrote:
> Hi Shadi,
>
>> On 3 Jul 2015, at 08:13, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
>> Section "Timeline" says:
>>
>> [[
>> Each of the following milestones will be developed in close coordination with EOWG and will be provided for review and feedback:
>> ]]
>>
>> It then lists the interim deliverables and their approximate timing:
>> - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2015/showcase-tf#timeline
>>
>> Is this sufficient indication of the review points and the anticipated close coordination with EOWG?
>
> I think the only thing I would say about this is that while the milestones are clear it is not necessarily clear what will be reviewed. For example,  Q3 2015 indicates Development of scenarios, story boards, etc and Q4 2015 indicate a ‘first reviews’ activity. But it is not clear what will be reviewed. Are the story boards, scenes and scripts to be reviewed? or is it just the raw clips? Similarly in the 2016 milestones there is a ‘Review’ activity but not necessarily what will be reviewed at this point.

I changed "first reviews" to "first videos" to make it clearer. All the 
resources will be iteratively reviewed by EOWG as we go along.


> I think it just might help planning in both the TF and EO if the deliverables for review were clearly outlined. That then allows for a clear point to plan to for the TF, and EO will be clear on what is expected.

Not sure if it is really necessary to detail this further. This is not a 
waterfall model where all the details are pre-determined. I think we 
have several review points to keep the work going according to plan.


> I suppose I am assuming that TFs are sort of black box units that work away for a while and then pop-up when something is complete. In which case, interim deliverables would be important considerations.

This approach typically has issues, in that discussions are reiterated 
in the main group. On-going coordination is usually better IMO.

In any case, this is not that type of TF. The statement repeatedly 
mentions "close coordination with EOWG", and, as you know, specifies 
interim deliverables that will be reviewed by EOWG (see above).


> Generally I am just flagging this as something that I would include in a statement of work. This isn’t a big wavy stick type show stopper.

You say the milestones are clear. Good. These milestones will be 
reviewed. Again, you seem to have a wrong assumption of the TF. We could 
discuss with EOWG if you feel more detail is necessary.


>>> Minor edit: might 'performers' be better than 'protagonist', as protagonist
>>> suggests the leading character but there may be other roles?
>>
>> Good point about protagonists but we also do not anticipate to hire actual performers either. I think protagonists is commonly used in filming and we can keep it for now. It is better than performers IMO.
>
> I don’t think I was suggesting any hiring. More that protagonist is the focal point and I would have inferred that there is usually only one of them, but there may be others involved in the films. As I say minor point and not one I am losing sleep over ;)

The people depicted are kind of the focal point. Is this really worth 
the time we are spending on this issue? Should we brainstorm terms?

Best,
   Shadi


> Thanks
>
> Kevin
>
>
>

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

Received on Friday, 3 July 2015 11:37:11 UTC