[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Atompub WG Work Plan




With thanks to Paul and Sam for hammering IT out, here is our initial work plan. I'm sure we'll modify this with experience.


GOALS:
- First draft revisions by July 2nd, clearly marked "do not implement"
- Drafts with the "do not implement" mark removed published by Halloween

WORK METHOD:
- The WG secretary will schedule issues from the issues list for
discussion.
- We'll handle a small number of issues in parallel, the number depending on
issue complexity and how good we get at this
- The Chairs' duties will be mostly keeping debate civil and moving along, and
ascertaining when the consensus is good enough. We may occasionally use
straw polls.


GETTING STARTED:
- As of now, debate is open as to whether the issues marked "Proceed" in the
issues list are in fact sufficiently cooked. Remember that we're not after
perfection, the reason we have intelligent human editors is so that they
can exercise their intelligence in polishing off rough edges.
[http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomPubIssuesList]
- As soon as possible but no later than next Wednesday June 30th, Paul and I
will group the "Proceed" issues into "Proceed" and "Revisit" based on what
the group says.
- If our editors wanted to get going right now on the apparent low-hanging
fruit in the "Proceed" list and start banging away on the drafts, that
would be nice.


RULES OF ENGAGEMENT:
- Email to the list that does not contain an Issue ID in the title or the
phrase "Propose new Issue" is apt to be ignored, at least by the chairs,
secretary, and editors.
- New issue proposals without fully worked out text are apt to be ignored, at
least by the chairs, secretary and editors.
- It would be good to mark with [Editorial] in the subject line things that
probably don't constitute a material change.
- Statements of disagreement unaccompanied by specific suggestions for
alternatives do not necessarily constitute evidence of lack of consensus.
(A reasonable alternative is "drop this whole proposal" optionally
accompanied by "and replace it with...").
- On any given issue, it is unlikely that, after 2 or 3 days of discussion,
any new arguments will emerge. Then your workload shifts from explaining
why you're right to figuring out what spec language has a chance of
gathering consensus and moving forward.
- The chairs will eventually declare that a good-enough rough consensus exists
to mark an issue "Proceed" and turn the issue over to the editors to
attempt to work the proposed language into the draft. This will often
require a bit more editorial creativity than you'd expect.


None of this is set in stone. Meta-debate about process is OK, but let's run with this for a while until we have some experience to base it on. -Tim