OpenDocument - Adv Document Collab SC

  • 1.  RE: [office-collab] Proposed Roadmap for ADC SC work

    Posted 03-04-2011 18:03
    I assume you are joking when you say silence is consent. There are probably some things to do to tighten up SC activity so that you get more affirmative participation. First, with regard to the roadmap, you might want to have a last call asking for any modifications or objections. You probably should have a meeting too to close on that. Sometimes that is the only way to get folks attention. Since the use cases represent a significant scope commitment, you might also need to find a way to rank them and arrive at a consensus on the prioritization. It may take some work and a call or two to get to that, especially if there are clashes among the use cases. More generally, I think you should consider the following: 1. The just-approved standing rules apply to this work. (JIRA needs to be used.) You don't need that for the roadmap, but proposal discussion need to be on JIRA. 2. The wiki doesn't work for documents-of-record or whatever the proper term is. At some point there need to be documents in the ODF TC document repository that represent approved working documents and specific proposals (when too big for JIRA). The roadmap should probably be one of those too. (The document registry is versioned so you can add revisions with no problem, and you can update the status of an existing version to reflect approval and other comments.) 3. There need to be minutes that reflect SC activity and especially agreements at the SC level, although I think for anything substantive to go from working draft to approved in any way, there must be a motion at the ODF TC level and its outcome recorded in the ODF TC minutes. (If an SC document is approved in this way, its status can be changed to reflect that, with a link to those minutes.) 4. With regard to JIRA, there is a Change Tracking component, and that should be set on all issues opened for the current effort. (It probably should be added to older ones that were deferred too. I'll look into that. There is one pending-proposal JIRA issue already, assigned to Mingfei Jia.) Apart from the amount of traffic that JIRA notices add to the ODF TC list (a procedural requirement), using JIRA in this way (1) gives anyone who cares notice of activity and actions and (2) it is easy to create filters and dashboards for focusing on and managing the progress of the issue development and resolution for the Change Tracking component. - Dennis


  • 2.  Re: [office] RE: [office-collab] Proposed Roadmap for ADC SC work

    Posted 03-04-2011 18:20
    Hi Dennis, Subcommittees are by design informal. They don't have the ability to approve drafts, to vote items in or out of ODF 1.3, there are no formal requirements for minutes or meetings, they cannot issue TC ballots, etc. Think of a SC as a subset of TC members who want a work area (mailing list, doc repository, etc.) where they can work on a proposal before bringing it to the TC. Their lack of potency to approve work is matched by the lack of many formal process requirements. Certainly when we have something ready for the TC to look at and approve, then we'll need something in JIRA, and a contribution in the doc repository or mailing list (not just the wiki). At that point we'll treat the SCs proposal per the standing rule, as we would any member proposal. Another thing a SC may do is seek TC approval of use cases or some other preliminary document. I believe we did that with the Accessibility and Metadata SCs. Same idea applies there. Get a document together, get informal approval at the SC level, then upload it into the TC's doc repository and ask for the TC to review and comment on the use cases, and sign off on them if acceptable. This isn't a requirement, but it might be a useful thing to do, to move things along. -Rob "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 03/04/2011 01:03:20 PM: > > I assume you are joking when you say silence is consent. > > There are probably some things to do to tighten up SC activity so > that you get more affirmative participation. > > First, with regard to the roadmap, you might want to have a last > call asking for any modifications or objections. You probably should > have a meeting too to close on that. Sometimes that is the only way > to get folks attention. > > Since the use cases represent a significant scope commitment, you > might also need to find a way to rank them and arrive at a consensus > on the prioritization. It may take some work and a call or two to > get to that, especially if there are clashes among the use cases. > > More generally, I think you should consider the following: > > 1. The just-approved standing rules apply to this work. (JIRA needs > to be used.) You don't need that for the roadmap, but proposal > discussion need to be on JIRA. > > 2. The wiki doesn't work for documents-of-record or whatever the > proper term is. At some point there need to be documents in the ODF > TC document repository that represent approved working documents and > specific proposals (when too big for JIRA). The roadmap should > probably be one of those too. (The document registry is versioned > so you can add revisions with no problem, and you can update the > status of an existing version to reflect approval and other comments.) > > 3. There need to be minutes that reflect SC activity and especially > agreements at the SC level, although I think for anything > substantive to go from working draft to approved in any way, there > must be a motion at the ODF TC level and its outcome recorded in the > ODF TC minutes. (If an SC document is approved in this way, its > status can be changed to reflect that, with a link to those minutes.) > > 4. With regard to JIRA, there is a Change Tracking component, and > that should be set on all issues opened for the current effort. (It > probably should be added to older ones that were deferred too. I'll > look into that. There is one pending-proposal JIRA issue already, > assigned to Mingfei Jia.) Apart from the amount of traffic that > JIRA notices add to the ODF TC list (a procedural requirement), > using JIRA in this way (1) gives anyone who cares notice of activity > and actions and (2) it is easy to create filters and dashboards for > focusing on and managing the progress of the issue development and > resolution for the Change Tracking component. > > - Dennis > >
    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: [office] RE: [office-collab] Proposed Roadmap for ADC SC work

    Posted 03-04-2011 19:12
    When I came onto the ODF TC the OpenFormula work was at the point where drafts existed in the OASIS document registry. But when we went to JIRA, OpenFormula went onto it at once. I recommend that the SC do that for the Change Tracking component as soon as possible. It is much more transparent. - Dennis
    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: [office] RE: [office-collab] Proposed Roadmap for ADC SC work

    Posted 03-04-2011 19:12
    When I came onto the ODF TC the OpenFormula work was at the point where drafts existed in the OASIS document registry. But when we went to JIRA, OpenFormula went onto it at once. I recommend that the SC do that for the Change Tracking component as soon as possible. It is much more transparent. - Dennis
    Original Message


  • 5.  Re: [office] RE: [office-collab] Proposed Roadmap for ADC SC work

    Posted 03-04-2011 18:20
    Hi Dennis, Subcommittees are by design informal. They don't have the ability to approve drafts, to vote items in or out of ODF 1.3, there are no formal requirements for minutes or meetings, they cannot issue TC ballots, etc. Think of a SC as a subset of TC members who want a work area (mailing list, doc repository, etc.) where they can work on a proposal before bringing it to the TC. Their lack of potency to approve work is matched by the lack of many formal process requirements. Certainly when we have something ready for the TC to look at and approve, then we'll need something in JIRA, and a contribution in the doc repository or mailing list (not just the wiki). At that point we'll treat the SCs proposal per the standing rule, as we would any member proposal. Another thing a SC may do is seek TC approval of use cases or some other preliminary document. I believe we did that with the Accessibility and Metadata SCs. Same idea applies there. Get a document together, get informal approval at the SC level, then upload it into the TC's doc repository and ask for the TC to review and comment on the use cases, and sign off on them if acceptable. This isn't a requirement, but it might be a useful thing to do, to move things along. -Rob "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 03/04/2011 01:03:20 PM: > > I assume you are joking when you say silence is consent. > > There are probably some things to do to tighten up SC activity so > that you get more affirmative participation. > > First, with regard to the roadmap, you might want to have a last > call asking for any modifications or objections. You probably should > have a meeting too to close on that. Sometimes that is the only way > to get folks attention. > > Since the use cases represent a significant scope commitment, you > might also need to find a way to rank them and arrive at a consensus > on the prioritization. It may take some work and a call or two to > get to that, especially if there are clashes among the use cases. > > More generally, I think you should consider the following: > > 1. The just-approved standing rules apply to this work. (JIRA needs > to be used.) You don't need that for the roadmap, but proposal > discussion need to be on JIRA. > > 2. The wiki doesn't work for documents-of-record or whatever the > proper term is. At some point there need to be documents in the ODF > TC document repository that represent approved working documents and > specific proposals (when too big for JIRA). The roadmap should > probably be one of those too. (The document registry is versioned > so you can add revisions with no problem, and you can update the > status of an existing version to reflect approval and other comments.) > > 3. There need to be minutes that reflect SC activity and especially > agreements at the SC level, although I think for anything > substantive to go from working draft to approved in any way, there > must be a motion at the ODF TC level and its outcome recorded in the > ODF TC minutes. (If an SC document is approved in this way, its > status can be changed to reflect that, with a link to those minutes.) > > 4. With regard to JIRA, there is a Change Tracking component, and > that should be set on all issues opened for the current effort. (It > probably should be added to older ones that were deferred too. I'll > look into that. There is one pending-proposal JIRA issue already, > assigned to Mingfei Jia.) Apart from the amount of traffic that > JIRA notices add to the ODF TC list (a procedural requirement), > using JIRA in this way (1) gives anyone who cares notice of activity > and actions and (2) it is easy to create filters and dashboards for > focusing on and managing the progress of the issue development and > resolution for the Change Tracking component. > > - Dennis > >
    Original Message


Related Content