Subject: [Tools-discuss] Feature suggestion for ID tracker

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 10:20:25 +0300

Hi,

In some drafts I've recently worked on, there have been big delays
(like six months) in the "AD Evaluation" and/or "AD Followup"
stages. Some of these delays have been due to lazy authors (including 
myself), but in some cases, one contributing factor has been that 
it was not clear who was supposed to do something next.

Or in other words, the authors thought they're waiting for the AD to
do something, and the AD thought he/she is waiting for the authors...

So, I'd propose adding "who has the next action" field to the ID
tracker. When the draft moves to AD Evaluation/AD Followup, this could
be automatically set to the AD. But during the process, the AD (or
perhaps someone else as well) could change this field to indicate that
they're waiting for someone else before proceeding.

The tracker could also have a page that would allow an AD see all the
drafts where he/she has the next action. And drafts where the ball has
been in the AD's court for more than a month could be shown in red and
blinking text :-)

(This might help situations where ADs progress some drafts rather
quickly, but others sit in the queue forever...)

Any thoughts about this? Would this help the process? Are the
any challenges in actually implementing this that I haven't
thought about? (It's not exactly clear who else than AD could
change this information, and how to ensure it gets changed...)

Best regards,
Pasi

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:24:52 +0200

Pasi, as far as I can see "who has next action" is always clear
(except for Dead state). For example New I-D Needed ==> authors,
AD Follow-up ==> AD, etc.

What is missing, and which is in the wish list already, is
generation of periodic reminders automatically, every N weeks,
if the state doesn't change.

    Brian

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:38:35 +0200

At least in some cases, that doesn't seem to be maintained...