Subject: [Tools-discuss] WG tracker and lack of automatic state changes

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:05:35 +0200

Hi,

After having been on vacation I sat down and refreshed my view of the
state of the AVTCORE WG one of the WG I chair. We are using the tracker
decently well and actually put in information in it. After having been
away for quite a number of week I did notice a number of inconsistencies
in the tracker. I especially noticed two types:

Documents that has been publication requested we have failed to move
into "submitted to IESG" state.

The other I noticed is the "revised ID needed" state.

I think these inconsistencies can be avoided by some automatic state
transfers being implemented. First of all if the IESG tracker sets the
state into publication requested, shouldn't the WG tracker automatically
move to "Submitted to IESG"?

Secondly, the revised ID needed state I think should be update from
"Revised ID needed" to a an equivalent to "AD follow up", maybe "WG
follow up" indicating that what ever prompted the revision needs to be
verified and the next steps determined.

To motivate why I think leaving it in "revised ID needed" is bad. If one
see the "revised ID needed" state one immediately thinks as another WG
participant that there is little point doing anything, as the authors
anyway need to fix the document. Thus I think a sub-state that makes the
WG act rather the discourage work is needed.

cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:50:26 -0500

Hi Magnus -

I agree with these observations.
Comments inline.

> move to "Submitted to IESG"?
Yes. There has already been some work to get closer to this.
I think we should also improve the UI so that it's _obvious_ that this is
happening, rather than it being an subtle side-effect of changing the WG 
state.
(Some work towards that may have already started).

> WG act rather the discourage work is needed.
Agreed.

Right now, the WG gets mail when the new ID is submitted. Is that enough 
of a nudge for the chairs and shepherd also,
or do you think any additional message would be helpful when this 
transition happens?

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

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 04:37:23 +0200

> move to "Submitted to IESG"?

Actually, this is supposed to work the other way around.  Now that
things are in place to handle this, the correct way to get a document
submitted to the IESG is to set the WG state to "Submitted to the IESG
for Publication".  The automated things then kick the IESG state into
"Publication Requested".  You're asking for the opposite.

It makes sense to have the opposite happen, in the event that things
are done that way... but things should not generally be done that way
any more.

Barry

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:45:48 +0200

> are done that way... but things should not generally be done that way

Sure, I have missed that it is sufficient to set a document in Submitted
to IESG state in the WG tracker and the magic happens on the IESG side.
It has been quite a while where this hasn't been the truth, thus my
observation. If setting the state to Submitted to IESG works for this
then this is a transient problem and will go away as people use that.

But, I wonder how many WG chairs will continue request manual
publication. From that perspective, I think one should consider a double
checking feature that moves WG tracker along if the IESG tracker is
moved to publication requested sate.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:49:14 +0200

> or do you think any additional message would be helpful when this

For me personally I think it is enough. An email going to me as
shepherd/WG chair of the transition when it happens might get a quicker
follow up. I am uncertain of how useful it is to others.

I would say implement it only if it is dead simple to do, and possibly
one would like to have a settings for having them on or off.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:42:18 +0200

>> "Publication Requested".
...
> moved to publication requested sate.

That's up to the ADs.  In the Applications Area, no WGCs continue to
request publication manually, because Pete and I won't accept requests
that way.  We tell the chairs that using the datatracker is the way to
do it, and so they do it that way.  It's easier for them and it's more
reliable for us... and it's the only way we'll accept it.

I know there are other ADs who want things done that way, and I'm sure
it's not all of us.  At some point, it will be.

Barry