Re: [cti-stix] A couple steps to help us in prioritizing Issues but still get stuff done

[Jerome Athias <athiasjerome@gmail.com>]

makes sense.
Thanks a ton for the efforts and clarification

2015-10-30 22:06 GMT+03:00 Barnum, Sean D. <sbarnum@mitre.org>:
> All,
>
> We’ve discussed recently how we are going to handle prioritizing issues to
> determine in what order we will discuss and dispose of them.
> On the last STIX meeting call we talked about a few technical options for
> supporting tracked “voting” by all STIX SC members. They all have their up
> sides and down sides.
> Several members suggested that the co-chairs just consider the issues and
> suggest a roadmap and adjust for any expressed disagreement from members.
> A couple of members expressed opinions that an explicit “voting” (opinion
> expressing) mechanism is desired.
> Most voices have been relatively silent either way. We presume this is
> likely due to a desire to just keep moving rather than continue to worry
> about an optimal solution.
> In the interest of “getting stuff done” we recently proposed an initial
> focus on two specific issues (Sightings and Relationships) and heard no
> objections to this.
> As the traffic on the list demonstrates we continue to have great
> discussions on these topics.
>
> We want to keep the progress moving once we are ready to move beyond these
> initial two issues.
> We also recognize that the 155 open issues in the tracker are a pretty big
> bite to swallow in one go.
> In an attempt to try to reduce everyone’s bite size and assist in narrowing
> down what the highest priority items might be I have taken an initial triage
> pass through the open tracker issues and labeled them as Tier1, Tier2 or
> Tier3.
> I have created a wiki page
> (https://github.com/STIXProject/specifications/wiki/STIX-2.0-Issue-Triage)
> to explain the triage and provide dynamic links into the trackers to let you
> see just specifically labeled issues.
>
> The criteria I used for this triage are:
>
> Tier1 is defined as: Issues of high community-voiced importance/interest
> and/or high architectural significance.
> Tier2 is defined as: Issues of moderate community-voiced importance/interest
> and low-mid architectural significance.
> Tier3 is defined as: Issues of low strategic relevance or active interest.
>
> This is an initial subjective cut by me and we welcome feedback from you on
> any issues where you disagree with the triage category. For any issues that
> you think should be higher or lower level in the triage let us know.
>
> We recognize that this does not magically solve everything  and reduce our
> open issues to only a handful but we hope that it will be a useful step in
> helping us tackle the work in front of us.
>
> In addition to the priority triage I also applied a few new labels to issues
> based on some patterns of common types of issues I noticed when reviewing
> the list.
> There are currently four of these: Abstraction related issues, Relationship
> related issues, Incident related issues and Vocabulary related issues.
> Dynamic links are also provided for these on the wiki page.
> If you have ideas for other similar grouping factors let us know.
>
> This does not mean that we have completely discounted the desire for a more
> explicit and granular mechanism for folks to express priority opinions on
> the issues. We will continue to look into approaches and encourage ideas and
> contributions from the SC on this matter.
> For now we want to focus on getting things done and not let the perfect be
> the enemy of the good.
>
> sean