Subject: [Tools-discuss] Raw 1st draft: SoW for improvements to the manual submission process

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:00:48 -0500

The transparency of the ID submission process needs to be improved,
particularly for those submissions that are handled directly by the
secretariat ("manual" and "forced" submissions).

When an author uses the datatracker submission tool, SubmissionEvents
are captured, noting when the draft was submitted, when it was approved
by previous authors (and by who), when it was approved by a WG chair if
such approval was necessary, and when it was posted into the
repository. Currently, the document’s history shows only that a new
version is available.

The submission tool presents an option to authors to request that the
secretariat finish the submission process. The datatracker captures the
candidate document and sends email to the secretariat. Often the
request is made because the submission tool was unable to extract the
correct meta-data from the document. In this case, the secretariat
populates the meta-data, and forces the post. In other cases, there are
issues identified by id-nits that the secretariat helps diagnose, and
the author is guided through fixing the issues and restarting the
submission process with a repaired document. Again, SubmissionEvents
are captured as the document goes through this process, but for drafts
that are forced, the document history does not reflect these events.

The secretariat also receives requests to post a draft by direct email,
bypassing the submission tool altogether. (Currently, the secretariat
receives around 10 such requests each meeting cycle). The secretariat
operates the submission tool on behalf of the author. The
SubmissionEvents currently captured do not reflect that this was a
manual submission request.

The secretariat currently relies on a combination of RT and personal
email archives to keep track of the outstanding manual submission
requests.

This project will make the following improvements:

When a document is posted via the normal submission process, DocEvents
reflecting the SubmissionEvents for the initial submission, the
approval of previous authors, and the approval of a stream authority
(such as WG chairs for a WG -00) will be added to the document. That
is, where documents currently typically have a first history entry of
"New version available: whatever-00", The first entries will be "New
version submitted", "New version approved by previous author: (name)",
"WG -00 approved by (name)", "New version available: whatever-00". The
entries for subsequent versions are analogous.

When manual submission is requested via the submission tool, and the
document is posted by the secretariat, DocEvents reflecting that the
manual posting was requested, any approvals obtained, and that the
document was forced will be added to the document.  An example of the
entries would be  "Manual submission requested by (name)", "Meta-data
set to <metadata> by (name)", "WG -00 approved by (name)", "New version
available: whatever -00".

When manual submission is requested by direct email, the secretariat
will have the ability to tell the tracker that the request was received
and upload the document from the email request, but not handle the
request immediately. After this indication, the document will be in the
same condition as a document requesting manual submission via the
submission tool.

However the secretariat should not be forced to take that extra step if
the request will be processed immediately. The submission tool should
be modified to allow the secretariat to indicate they are submitting
the document on behalf of an author at their request for manual
submission. SubmissionEvents indicating that manual submission was
requested will be created. Once the document is posted, DocEvents
reflecting the history of the submission (as described for the above
cases) will be created.

A page will be created (readable by anyone) that shows the set of
outstanding manual submission requests. Each entry will either show, or
provide navigation to a separate page that shows, the SubmissionEvent
history for the outstanding submission. When logged in as the
secretariat, there will be easy navigation from each entry to the page
that allows processing the request.

Note that as of release 6.0.4, the manual submission process results in
a DocEvent that says simple "New version available" without providing a
link to the version that became available.  This project will ensure
that all paths that produce a "New version available" DocEvent include
a link to the new version in the event’s description.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:54:57 -0400

> receives around 10 such requests each meeting cycle). The secretariat

Do we know why the authors use this process?

Is it people with aversions to web browsers,  people who have been doing it
this way for 20 years and won't change, or is it people whose networks are
too slow?

    > entries for subsequent versions are analogous.

On the topic of "surprise" authorship, will it be possible to ask the tool
for a list of document on which my name exists, but which I have never
approved?   Could I also (co-?)approve documents that I know about, but which I
didn't do the submission?

I'm often surprised that I have to approve a new submission even though I was
logged into the datatracker when I made the submission. (I realize that this
is due to the evolution of the datatracker: we had submission before we had logins...)

All the rest of your proposals also seem sensible.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-