Meeting minutes
Minutes
<kaz> Oct-31
Ege: anything to change?
… minutes are approved
use case discussion
<kaz> PR 2053 - User Stories in Work Item Descriptions
<kaz> changes
Ege: the submitter writes the user story
… we decided to keep who, what, and why as separate line items in the form
… We probably have enough use cases to justify the planned work
… we can link features to use cases and stories
McCool: we could use a table to associate features with use cases
… we could maintain links in one direction and use tables for the reverse direction
Ege: we need to also capture who is involved, sometimes called "stakeholders"
… 4 categories of stakeholder
… submitter, spec writer, implementer, and impacted
McCool: there are other stakeholders like device installer
… these categories are new definitions for roles
… we need to consolidate the definitions in the UCR document
… the different documents we publish have their own stakeholder definitions
Kaz: do we want to get new use cases from the stakeholders? Who are the priority stakeholders?
… industry liaison is a priority
McCool: we can sort by category for priority as a separate step from identifying stakeholders
Kaz: we don't need a lot of details
Ege: we need this for the work items we have
McCool: we need to identify negative vs. positive impacts
Ege: can we requite the user stories in who, what, why format?
McCool: it seems clear enough
McCool: each are a line item
<cris> +1
<EgeKorkan> proposal: User Stories should be written as a set of 3 items, the total being a single sentence if items were put together
McCool: written as if it is part of a sentence
McCool: going to create a draft PR with examples
<cris> +1
McCool: this is mostly process documentation rather than spec content
Mahda: it seems easier to write a user story than who, what, why and may not be equivalent
McCool: the intention is not to have different meanings
Ege: don't understand the issue
Mahda: would rather write sentences than separate expressions
McCool: you can write the sentence and then pull out the expressions
RESOLUTION: User Stories should be written as a set of 3 items, the total being a single sentence if items were put together
Ege: no objections to the proposal
Ege: does anyone object to the stakeholder definitions?
<EgeKorkan> proposal: We should identify process stakeholder for each user story submission. See PR 2053 for the concrete definitions
RESOLUTION: We should identify process stakeholder for each user story submission. See PR 2053 for the concrete definitions
Ege: no objections, approved
<kaz> [ submitter, spec writer, implementation volunteer, impacted people ]
Example review
Ege: (walks through the Reusable Connection example)
Ege: there should be links from the form to the defined use cases
McCool: there can be more than one use case
… we should re-use the categories we have and avoid creating new ones
Ege: we may not always get a comprehensive writeup with a submission
Ege: the example contains everything that might be needed in a submission
… are there any comments on the PR #2053?
… any opinions?
Ege: OK, we will merge the PR
… what is the next step?
McCool: we need to decide locations for the documents and linking, and the table we discussed earlier
… will create a PR and send the link
Kaz: let's merge this PR and handle the UCR note separately
McCool: I'll create a PR and we can review in the Use Case context
Kaz: we need to clarify what will be done in the TD call and what is in the scope of the UC TF
McCool: the specific user stories are TD TF scope
Ege: we would create tracking for the TD issues
McCool: yes, you can track them and submit from the TD TF
… we generally won't accept input from outside the WoT group
Kaz: we need to think about document structure
McCool: there is a PR to add new sections and categories
McCool: the scope is use case categories and requirements
Kaz: we don't need to include the current document in the new document, but can link to it. the detailed discussion should be organized during the UC call.
Ege: we are almost at the hour, we can continue the discussion in the UC TF
… any other business?
… adjourned