All --
I've made several changes to align with normal practice for use of Jira
and other tracking systems. Since Paul has left, and I'm working
several other Jira projects, I'm making these changes for clarity and
showing work in progress as well as to match the model of the tracking
system and the way I've set up other TCs. These will allow us to see at
a glance the state of the work on these specs, as well as progress on
resolving the Public Review comments and creating the next Committee
Draft, which today is quite confused.
These changes will make the work much faster, and provide a framework
to accomplish the changes and validate that they're finished.
Here are some structural changes; lifecycle corrections are described
later in this email.
- The state changes (work flow) are WRONG. All issues showed as
"New" until they moved to "Closed". "Closed" issues are shown as "NOT
RESOLVED". This is incorrect, unclear, makes it harder to work, and
doesn't reflect work in progress.
- Accordingly, all NEW issues have been moved to OPEN. See
LIFECYCLE below. This is the standard in the OASIS configuration. More
changes described there.
- There are no releases; the components are not structured as
needed (they are "PR" and "Protocol Spec").
- Accordingly, I've changed the first component name to "PR01",
left "Protocol Spec" alone, and created a new component "spec". I plan
to use the titles as subcomponents in the future (and put "protocol"
under that), or to make all four specs components with "spec" in their
title.
- We have no versions. You can't tell except implicitl against what
version a change. After talking to several Jira Jocks (tm) I've decided
to name the releases as Committee Drafts. I did NOT create a separate
PR, as I believe that PR01 and CD03 are substantially identical.
- The level of granularity for releases needs to be Committee
Drafts, not Working Drafts (or we'll waste a lot of time).
- Accordingly, I've created versions cd03 and cd04 [the next
Committee Draft). I tagged cd03 as released. I changed ALL issues to
say "affects versions: cd03" and "Fix version/s: cd04".
- The priorities are all "MAJOR". This is a bad idea. Editorial
changes and clarifications are never MAJOR. I've corrected some, and
we'll need to all correct others.
LIFECYCLE of an issue (an issue is a task, sub-task, bug, enhancement,
etc)
- New = new issue, TC has not yet agreed to fix it
- Open = someone has agreed to investigate the issue, owner assigned
- Resolved = technical resolution agreed on, editorial work
possibly remaining
- Applied = editor has entered the fix into a draft, but draft not
yet approved by TC. NOTE THAT THIS IS A WD heading into the next CD.
- Closed = the draft resolving the issue has been approved by the
TC, or the issue was otherwise closed
The issues that we have discussed and said are "closed" are not in the
correct form/terminology.
So I've moved all "NEW" issues to "OPEN", and all "CLOSED" issues to
"RESOLVED" by bulk edits. (the latter had to be
CLOSED-->OPEN-->RESOLVED, and I used "fixed" for all -- note that
a resolution doesn't need to be "fixed", it can be many other things
like "rejected". This will need some attention by Szu.
The process for handling state transitions is:
- NEW-->OPEN someone takes the responsibility to investigate
and make a recommendation (usually Szu)
- OPEN-->RESOLVED a proposed resolution is voted on by the
committee (can group these; many already done, and the previous
"closed" issues are actually voted on to "resolve."
- RESOLVED-->APPLIED Technical edit is done, and a document,
wd and line numbers are described in which the changes are found
- APPLIED-->CLOSED The TC approves the next Committee Draft,
cd04 after all changes have been made.
This means that at a meeting we can talk all open issues that have
proposed resolutions, look at the resolutions, and approve them. Also,
the step of verifying that a change is correcxt and has been made can
be done in bulk at the RESOLVED-->APPLIED step.
Thanks!
bill
|