[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Reapproving approved proposals
Perhaps one process change we can make is to have our issue template have sections called "Corner cases" "Advanced Examples" and "Interactions with other features". Sometimes the writer of an issue document has all of the advanced stuff in their head but the rest of us do not think about it until someone says: "Hey, what about this corner case?" Even if the original author does not list every corner case, the existence of the sections might trigger thoughts in others. This is not a slam against any issue editor in specific, every requirements process runs into these issues. DITA itself has many unexplored corner cases that we still haven't gotten around to addressing yet. The first versions of any complex system will have those issues. But we should be more aggressive about getting them into discussion earlier. A lot of the index issues started to be contentious when we realized that index entries could get very complex and thus linking to them could get equally complex. > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Day [mailto:dond@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:16 AM > To: Michael Priestley > Cc: Chris Wong; Dana Spradley; dita@lists.oasis-open.org; JoAnn Hackos > Subject: Re: [dita] Reapproving approved proposals > > I echo my TC Chairly endorsement to this statement by Michael: > > this should not be a precedent for generally reopening the issues. > > By selecting a subset of initial proposals for DITA 1.1 and > then having a "design approval" stage for those, we had hoped > to make some of the work go in parallel and then stitch the > components into the final deliverable. It has not been a > perfect process by any means, and we'll change some things > for 1.2 for sure. The main thing I would change next time we > do this is to get everyone better engaged in the design > reviews early on. > > In response to Chris's question, "What does it mean to > approve something, if it can come apart at any time?", all I > can offer is that at the time this item was being approved, I > know that I only gave it a shallow read, and did not play the > scenarios back from a user's viewpoint, or a coder's > viewpoint. Perhaps that is where others were at as well. > But since we are still in a first draft stage of writing the > 1.1 spec, I'd suggest that the index range design approval is > not so much coming apart as getting some preliminary review > comments just in time for careful consideration before > there's no turning back. What I heard from today's first > session was a good level of analysis from everyone. Insight > on hard technical problems often comes slowly--I wish we had > had this discussion months ago. > > OASIS leaves committee process up to each TC, since each team > will have its own best way of doing things. Once the public > draft is out and we begin our 1.2 work, we will start with > some sessions on Lessons Learned where we can record our > mistakes and make some corrective course changes for the next > stage in our roadmap. > > Regards, > -- > Don Day > Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee > IBM Lead DITA Architect > Email: dond@us.ibm.com > 11501 Burnet Rd. MS9033E015, Austin TX 78758 > Phone: +1 512-838-8550 > T/L: 678-8550 > > "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? > Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" > --T.S. Eliot > > > > > Michael Priestley > > <mpriestl@ca.ibm. > > com> > To > Dana Spradley > > 08/09/2006 04:29 > <dana.spradley@oracle.com> > PM > cc > Chris Wong > <cwong@idiominc.com>, > Dana Spradley > > > <dana.spradley@oracle.com>, > > dita@lists.oasis-open.org, JoAnn > Hackos > > > <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com> > > Subject > Re: [dita] Reapproving > approved > proposals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Do you mean we should worry about work done by teams in advance of > >final > design approval? > > There's a fine semantic distinction here - we gave design > approval to these features some time ago, in a formal TC > vote. What reason would a development team have for thinking > those designs weren't final? I certainly thought they were final. > > If we're on the same page, and we can get approval on a > design that meets Paul's concerns with minimal breakage to > the existing proposal, then great. > I'm glad you agree that this should not be a precedent for > generally reopening the issues. > > Michael Priestley > IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead > mpriestl@ca.ibm.com > http://dita.xml.org/blog/25 > > > > Dana Spradley > > <dana.spradley@ora > > cle.com> > > > To > Dana Spradley > <dana.spradley@oracle.com> > 08/09/2006 05:04 > cc > PM Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, > Chris Wong > <cwong@idiominc.com>, > dita@lists.oasis-open.org, > JoAnn Hackos > <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com> > > Subject > Re: [dita] Reapproving approved > proposals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What a minute - maybe I missed something in your message Michael: > We are missing committed dates with teams that have invested > considerable development team in a design they thought was stable. > Do you mean we should worry about work done by teams in > advance of final design approval? > > --Dana > > Dana Spradley wrote: > I think we're saying the same thing, Michael, in different > ways: let's bring this to a vote, and if the design fails to > earn a majority, let's drop it and move on. > > I don't want to revisit the issue already compromised on - > but just recall it, to remind the TC that some of us never > considered this a very important enhancement anyway. > > Michael Priestley wrote: > > Given that each feature has been approved by a majority vote > of the TC, should it require a majority vote of the TC to > re-open? Otherwise the original vote has no meaning. > > I think it's important that this particular design revisit is > managed quickly and without it becoming a precedent that > tosses out our existing investment in process. If the subteam > can't come to an agreement by Tuesday's meeting I think it > should go to a vote as to whether the design should be opened > at all. I do think Paul has legitimate concerns, but I also > think this shouldn't open the door to revisit every > compromise we've managed to achieve in the last year. > > We are missing committed dates with teams that have invested > considerable development team in a design they thought was > stable. Our credibility with our development community is on the line. > > Michael Priestley > IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead > mpriestl@ca.ibm.com > http://dita.xml.org/blog/25 > > > Dana Spradley > > <dana.spradley@oracle. > > com> > > > To > Dana Spradley > <dana.spradley@oracle.com> > 08/09/2006 12:25 PM > cc > JoAnn Hackos > <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>, > Chris Wong <cwong@idiominc.com>, > > dita@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject > Re: [dita] Reapproving approved > proposals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, on second thought, and as a matter of principle, I > don't know - when it comes to approving a design, maybe we > should be able to resurrect old objections if the final > design doesn't satisfy and instead begs all these old > questions over again. > > Nothing's in the standard until the design is approved - and > even then, at some later date we could all decide we did > something wrong, and deprecate the solution until it can be > eliminated from the standard. > > --Dana > > Dana Spradley wrote: > I agree. If opposing this innovation had been important to > me, I should have done so before we approved the proposal. > > On the other hand, I would like to question Chris's notion > that since topics appear in the table of contents, they > shouldn't appear in the index. > > The index provides an alternative, alphabetical method for > looking up topics of interest - instead of going over the TOC > with a fine tooth comb to find what you're interested in. > > And I think that may turn out to be how many authors end up > using the index range feature - to index entire topics. > > Should the implemention give them some easy method to > accomplish that - by inserting one element instead of two? > > --Dana > > JoAnn Hackos wrote: > Hi Chris et al. > We're just speculating about the concept of page range. I'm > sure we all continue to agree that page ranges are > appropriate for the model. I was part of the earlier debate, > as you know. > > Let's concentrate on the mechanism. However, it is still a > good idea to advocate best practices in white papers on the > indexing issue, just as we have tried to do with the > Translation SC's best practice on indexing. You don't have to > do it this way, but it might help. > > Let's all focus on the mechanism at this point. > JoAnn > > > > JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD > President > Comtech Services, Inc. > 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400 > Denver CO 80215 > 303-232-7586 > joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com > > > > > > > > > From: Chris Wong [mailto:cwong@idiominc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:37 AM > To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [dita] Reapproving approved proposals > > This is more of a procedural question here, touched off by > our reopening the indexterm debate. Months ago, we spent > weeks debating, compromising and writing up proposals, DTDs > and language reference material for indexing enhancements. We > voted twice to approve this. But now the whole thing is > reopened for debate and it looks like everything is up for > grabs again. > > What does it mean to approve something, if it can come apart > at any time? > > Chris > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]