[Xesam] [Ticket-a-day] Initiative

[Evgeny Egorochkin]

On Tuesday 21 July 2009 11:37:17 Leo Sauermann wrote:
> agree
> (shoots, now I wasn't silent...)
>
> once a ticket is agreed, only the ONTOLOGY MAINTAINER should do the
> change to the actual RDF file on the SVN,
> what do you think?

Usually yes, although I don't see the ability to delegate the commit to 
another person if it's the easiest way out.

> and please remove now the procedures that are invalid and document this
> here:
> http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/oscaf/wiki/OntologyMaintenance

Hmm I'm assuming I should add myself as a backup maintainer for all NIE -based 
ontologies? Actually I'll gladly oversee other ontologies if it's needed. I 
can commit sufficient resources to this within the next several months. Anyway 
within several months we'll have the ontology stabilized.

> It was Evgeny Egorochkin who said at the right time 21.07.2009 00:45 the
>
> following words:
> > Hi guys.
> >
> > Now that our collaboration infrastructure is set up and flames are over,
> > we're supposed to start improving ontologies.
> >
> > Unfortunately the laid-back approach of people sometimes commenting on
> > some random ticket takes a bit more time to get issues resolved than it
> > could have(from my experience of course). Also, some direction as to what
> > needs attention right now might help, if not increase the rate of our
> > progress but at least would cause less troubles to people who depend on
> > our work by addressing the most important issues first.
> >
> > So my proposal is:
> >
> > I find a ticket that doesn't have any blockers or dependencies, so it can
> > be resolved right now, I start bugging people, asking for opinions etc
> > etc.
> >
> > Bugging doesn't mean getting in the way or distracting from important
> > matters. It simply means attracting sufficient attention to get stuff
> > done, asking for feedback issues, coordinating discussion.
> >
> > This way we don't have to wait 2 months to know for sure that people not
> > commenting on the issue are ok with whatever direction it takes as
> > opposed to being unaware of its existence or something. Also
> > communications may take simpler forms such as a list of wants and needs
> > from a particular Nepomuk stakeholder as opposed to a thought out
> > proposal.
> >
> > Thoughts? Ideas?
> >
> > P.S. Silence = agreement. You've been warned ;)
> >
> > -- Evgeny