Re: [HIG] A new plan for HIG: meeting cancelled, reviews still welcome, "must change" doc coming

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>]

On 21Oct2001 03:17PM (-0700), Adam Elman wrote:
> HIG folks --
> 
> So I've spent several hours over the last few days integrating 
> comments into the HIG draft.  I have decided not to actually complete 
> this integration; I got most of the reviews integrated, but have not 
> included all of Greg, Colin, or Maciej's comments (sorry guys).  The 
> doc is committed to CVS as hig_draft1_comments.sgml; I also have a 
> PDF version at http://64.194.11.129/~aelman/hig_draft1_comments.pdf
> 
> HOWEVER: This is not all that important.  What I have realized in 
> doing this task is that, unfortunately, there are very few clear 
> decision-making points in this document where we can really resolve 
> any concerns via a vote.  Rather, there are several sections which 
> need serious rethinking and rewrite, and there are some general 
> overriding concerns which need to be addressed by the authors of each 
> section.

I have a couple of questions about your plan:

1) How will we decide which comments should be addressed and which are
unimportant?

2) How will we decide how to resolve points of disagreement, either
between the reviewer and the original writer, or among different
reviewers?

3) Can we stop changing the plan for how to reach a finished document
on a weekly/daily/hourly basis? It's driving me nuts. I don't even
care that much what the plan is, but I really want it to be set and
followed. Yes, we need some flexibility, but we also need some
stability.


My suggestion would be to classify the comments into controversial and
non-controversial (ones where reviewers were in general agreement
about a particular issue), apply the latter, and make decisions via
some process on the former.

 
> HENCE, here's what we're gonna do.  If you don't like it, wah. :)
> 
> 0) No IRC review meeting.  Folks who want to meet on IRC to discuss 
> specific issues of concern to them in specific sections of the doc 
> are welcome to propose a meeting time, but we are not going to go 
> through the entire document.
> 
> 1) On Monday (tomorrow), I will write and post a document detailing 
> the changes that are necessary in each section.  Some of these 
> changes will be more general than others.  These changes will be 
> based on all the reviews which have been submitted (including those 
> which I didn't actually get "integrated" into the above doc).
> 2) In the next 14 days, authors will integrate those changes into 
> their sections and resubmit.  If you don't want to make certain 
> changes, or are confused about the changes that need to be made, 
> please feel free to discuss those changes on the mailing list.  If 
> you don't want to do it, or don't have time, let us know and we'll 
> find somebody else to rewrite your section for you.
> 3) As sections are committed, please send an email to hig gnome org 
> so that we can start reviewing changes as they happen.  I think we 
> should do this at the major-section level.  Hopefully, after 2 weeks, 
> we'll have a version which we're all comfortable posting to a wider 
> audience for further review.
> 
> Adam
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Hig mailing list
> Hig gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/hig