Subject: [Tools-discuss] Customize Workflow for WGs

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 11:19:19 -0500

Hi,
    I'm not sure who has the answer for this one:

Is it possible to add WG specific states to the data tracker workflow? 
If not, what is the process to get new states added?

Thank you,
Lou

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:18:02 +0100

Hi Lou,

> Is it possible to add WG specific states to the data tracker workflow?

Not today.
 
> If not, what is the process to get new states added?

There is no established process, and that is a definitive problem.  Robert
and I can easily add a state, but we don't know who can tell us to do so,
and we don't know what discussions have to happen, and where, and who makes
the call.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:25:27 -0500

Hi Henrik,
    Thank you for the information.

Alia, (RTG ADs)
    How do you want to handle this?  Discuss within the IESG?  (set
precedent) and approve adding of new states for RTG WGs?

The two new states I heard about were:
- Awaiting implementation (report)
- (Pre WG adoption|Pre WG LC) IPR Poll

Thanks,
Lou

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 19:20:14 +0100

Hi Lou,

Some comments inline, for what they are worth:

> precedent) and approve adding of new states for RTG WGs?

There should probably also be discussion on the wgchairs list.  That's
where suggested new states most often appear.  There is some precedent
in the wgchairs being a venue for these discussions, but there's no-one
who seems to be in a position to declare consensus there.

> The two new states I heard about were:

So WG document have _states_, and they have _tags_.  A document can
not be in more than one WG state at a time, but it can have multiple
tags, irrespective of the state.

> - Awaiting implementation (report)

This looks to me very much as a tag, as it's a condition which can
be set, and be true, at any point from the time a document becomes
a WG draft until it's an RFC.  I'd recommend not making this a state,
but making it a tag.  I think the need is clear and well expressed.

> - (Pre WG adoption|Pre WG LC) IPR Poll

From the label, I'd say this one could be either a state or a tag;
depending on how people want to use it.  Making it a state (or rather,
two states) looks like a closer fit for this one than for the previous
one.  However, the label itself is very cumbersome; something that
also would be eased by going for two states.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:06:21 -0500

Sounds like a good topic for the IESG informal.

I'll take that on.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 08:26:42 +1300

So, how about adding a state like "WG Hold" with a user-settable tag?

(It needs to be a state that allows transition from/to any other
WG state.)

That way you wouldn't need a discussion each time a new need comes up.

Regards
   Brian