Subject: [Tools-team] Summary: WG chairs query: preferred interface for wg tickets to the secretariat

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:19:59 +0200

Below is a copy of the mail I sent out to the wgchairs list, followed
by the responses that have come in so far.  Here's a summary (which
means some simplification and interpretation; read the responses 
for the full picture:

	1) email best		:	xx
	2) web best		:	
	3) both preferred	:	xxxxx

If only one:

	1) prefers email	:	xxxxx
	2) prefers web		:	x

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Tool query: preferred interface for wg tickets to the secretariat
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:37:25 +0200
Sender: [email-masked]
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913)

Hi,

    Thanks to everyone who provided feedback on the ID-submission
tool draft!  A new version will be out shortly.  Now for something
different:

    The tools team has been discussing alternatives for an improved
interface to the secretariat's ticket system, for tickets submitted
by WG chairs.  

Currently, problems related to servers, mailing lists, archives, Web
tools, etc. go by e-mail to [email-masked] .  Administrative
support issues (requesting publication of an I-D as an RFC, updating
milestones, asking questions about procedures, etc.) go by email to
[email-masked].

One particular point which we would like feedback on at this time
is whether:

    1)  e-mail constitutes the best way for WG chairs to submit issues
	in either of these categories

    2)  a web interface would be the best for WG chairs to submit issues
	in either of these categories

    3)  web and email interfaces are complimentary to such an extent
	that it make sense to put some extra effort into building and
	supporting both.

    4)  something different would be optimal (what?)

(The possibility of providing a web interface for ticket holders to
query the state of their ticket is a separate question from the one
above, and one which the tools team may also consider at a later time.)

	Regards,

		Henrik

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Tool query: preferred interface for wg tickets to the secretariat
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:04:23 -0700
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

	Hey Henrik,

>>    Thanks to everyone who provided feedback on the ID-submission
>> tool draft!  A new version will be out shortly.  Now for something
>> different:

	First, excellent work on the id tool. Very useful.

>>    The tools team has been discussing alternatives for an improved
>> interface to the secretariat's ticket system, for tickets submitted
>> by WG chairs.  
>> 
>> Currently, problems related to servers, mailing lists, archives, Web
>> tools, etc. go by e-mail to [email-masked] .  Administrative
>> support issues (requesting publication of an I-D as an RFC, updating
>> milestones, asking questions about procedures, etc.) go by email to
>> [email-masked].

	I find the whole "action" mailing list/concept confusing,
	and the TT system generates inconsistent from addressing,
	depending (it seems) on who and what you reply to. So
	these questions are much appreciated.

>> One particular point which we would like feedback on at this time
>> is whether:
>> 
>>    1)  e-mail constitutes the best way for WG chairs to submit issues
>> 	in either of these categories
>> 
>>    2)  a web interface would be the best for WG chairs to submit issues
>> 	in either of these categories
>>
>> 
>>    3)  web and email interfaces are complimentary to such an extent
>> 	that it make sense to put some extra effort into building and
>> 	supporting both.

	This one. I'd like to be able to submit or reply via
	email or web, and be able to track my tickets via some
	web interface (this is fairly common usage, AFAICT)

>>    4)  something different would be optimal (what?)
>> 
>> 
>> (The possibility of providing a web interface for ticket holders to
>> query the state of their ticket is a separate question from the one
>> above, and one which the tools team may also consider at a later time.)

	Again, it would seem that facilities like 3) are very
	common, and shouldn't require inventing anything new...

	Best regards,

	Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Tool query: preferred interface for wg tickets to the secretariat
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:39:05 -0400 (EDT)
X-Exim-Helo-Check-Failed: Verification failed for HELO newdev.harvard.edu

Henrik asked:
> One particular point which we would like feedback on at this time
> is whether:
> 
>     1)  e-mail constitutes the best way for WG chairs to submit issues
>         in either of these categories
> 
>     2)  a web interface would be the best for WG chairs to submit issues
>         in either of these categories
> 
>     3)  web and email interfaces are complimentary to such an extent
>         that it make sense to put some extra effort into building and
>         supporting both.
> 
>     4)  something different would be optimal (what?)
> 

I'd say #3 - I can queue up email anywhere but have to be in real-time
interactive access to use a web page

its also much faster to make simple requests in an email message
than to fumble with a web page, and it may be easier to submit
complex requests with a web page (if the web page designers anticipated
the specific type of complex request - if not then its likely to be
harder using a web page

if there is only one I'd rather email

Scott

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tool query: preferred interface for wg tickets to the secretariat
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:54:40 +0100
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)

Hi,

On 20 Sep 2004, at 15:37, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>    Thanks to everyone who provided feedback on the ID-submission
> tool draft!  A new version will be out shortly.  Now for something
> different:
>
>
>    The tools team has been discussing alternatives for an improved
> interface to the secretariat's ticket system, for tickets submitted
> by WG chairs.
> Currently, problems related to servers, mailing lists, archives, Web
> tools, etc. go by e-mail to [email-masked] .  Administrative
> support issues (requesting publication of an I-D as an RFC, updating
> milestones, asking questions about procedures, etc.) go by email to
> [email-masked].
>
> One particular point which we would like feedback on at this time
> is whether:
>
>    1)  e-mail constitutes the best way for WG chairs to submit issues
> 	in either of these categories

I think so. Mostly because I often end-up submitting issues whilst 
sitting on a flight or train, and having to wait until I have 
connectivity would disrupt the workflow.

> (The possibility of providing a web interface for ticket holders to
> query the state of their ticket is a separate question from the one
> above, and one which the tools team may also consider at a later time.)

This would be very useful, though.

Colin

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
To: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Tool query: preferred interface for wg tickets to the secretariat
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:08:42 -0700
X-Exim-Helo-Check-Failed: Verification failed for HELO fridge.docomolabs-usa.com

2) with followup notification via email.

            jak

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Tool query: preferred interface for wg tickets to the secretariat
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:44:42 -0400
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)

I consider email essential for request submission.  Webpages are a
nice to have.  There are lots of cases wher I want to copy someone on
a discussion and otherwise involve people in a discussion; email works
better for this.  As others have pointed out email is the correct
answer for offline requests.

I think that being able to accept email replies is an absolute
requirement for any ticketing system.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Tool query: preferred interface for wg tickets to thesecretariat
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:43:45 +0300

Henrik asked:
> One particular point which we would like feedback on at this time
> is whether:
> 
>     1)  e-mail constitutes the best way for WG chairs to submit issues
>         in either of these categories
> 
>     2)  a web interface would be the best for WG chairs to submit issues
>         in either of these categories
> 
>     3)  web and email interfaces are complimentary to such an extent
>         that it make sense to put some extra effort into building and
>         supporting both.
> 
>     4)  something different would be optimal (what?)

Point 3 should be no problem to do (and what I would like).  A simple mailto: 
link on a webpage with instructions on what is expected in the mail would
be a sufficient first step.

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Tool query: preferred interface for wg tickets to the	secretariat
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:47:48 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316

I'd say keep the e-mail system and use the cycles
that would go to web-based parallel into something
else... with more bang for the bucks...

--Jari

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:55:49 -0600 (MDT)

Henrik,

 	Thanks for doing this survey. It is clear to me that a 
web+email combo is the way to go. Essentially, in most cases, this 
probably means a web interface plus Secretariat time to "translate" 
informal e-mails into formal web requests. There are, of course, 
existing tools that can support the web part.

What remains unclear to me is how we should factor the cost factor in. 
Secretariat time "translating" informal e-mails into formal requests 
on the web is not free. The e-mail interface can be automated as well, 
but that would require submitters using some formal templates. I am 
not sure how to find the right balance between

 	"Let Secretariat do all the dirty work. IETF will pay."
and
 	"Let users do all the dirty work. They will pay."

In this context, "cost" and "payment" is not necessarily true money 
(although it could be in the long run), but more like Secretariat
resources/priorities.

I wonder, for example, how many submitters would use a template if a 
set of templates is provided. How many would use a template (or web) 
if formal requests are handled noticeably faster (i.e., if Secretariat 
gives low priority to informal request translation services).

Thanks,

Alex.

---

From: stanislav shalunov <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Sep 2004 13:00:56 -0400

Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]> writes:

> What remains unclear to me is how we should factor the cost factor
> in. Secretariat time "translating" informal e-mails into formal
> requests on the web is not free. The e-mail interface can be automated
> as well, but that would require submitters using some formal
> templates. I am not sure how to find the right balance between
> 

It would seem to me that the point of automation would be lost if
manual intervention were required on the part of the secretariat (or
any other administrative body) for the typical internet-draft.  Some
manual intervention MUST occur for cases where it's dictated by policy
(e.g., -00 WG submissions), but beyond policy reasons, it should only
be an exception.

This would seem to mean that email interface would require some form
of formal structure.  If the number of options is small (accept,
decline, return with note, etc.) one can imagine things like listing
the options and having the human decision-maker reply and quote only
the relevant command.

Initialization of an effort (e.g., submission of a draft) would still
require a web interface or a template, it would seem.

I believe a useful follow-up survey would be the openness of various
constituencies to using formal languages (commands, templates,
whatever) in email.

-- 
Stanislav Shalunov		http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/

Letters in this message are closer than they appear.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:27:47 +0200

Hi Alex,

> existing tools that can support the web part.

I agree that a combo is the thing desired, and also that it would be
better than what is available today.  I'm not sure how high priority it
has, however.  And finally, I'm wondering if the easiest way of setting
that up would be to exposing RT's web part to the ticket holders, either
by splitting RT into two RT installations and exposing the wgchair
queue, or by setting it up with permissions - I don't know exactly how
capable it is in that respect.

> (although it could be in the long run), but more like Secretariat

Well, yes, but I don't see that the current way of having email go into
RT need changing - it would more be the matter of exposing a web
interface in addition to the current method.  Come to think of it, maybe
it would be possible to expose a submit-only existing RT interface, and
we'd be done :-)

> gives low priority to informal request translation services).

I don't particularly see a win in trying to formalize requests to that
degree - if it is something that should be tried, I think it is a 
separate project, not part of the first one of providing a web 
submission interface...

	Henrik

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:59:22 -0600 (MDT)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, stanislav shalunov wrote:

> any other administrative body) for the typical internet-draft.

Just a note: This survey/thread is not about draft submission but 
about other things that Secretariat does for WG Chairs. Draft 
submission will be fully automated (with a manual submission option 
for unusual cases).

Alex.

---

From: stanislav shalunov <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Sep 2004 16:11:57 -0400

> submission will be fully automated (with a manual submission option

Understood.

We need some form of profiling of the current secretariat functions.
Not what they do exactly in each procedure, but just how much time is
spent there.  Then we can identify pieces that would benefit from
automation most.

I was silently assuming that draft advance takes up significant amount
of human administrative resources.  I suppose I don't really know if
that's the case.

Carl's suggestion of conducting interviews with the secretariat folks
is quite sound.  I would venture to add that interviewing the admins
might actually make even more sense than interviewing the programmers:
after all, it's not the programming that would be automated (or, to
put it differently: the programmers could supply debugging and flow
information while the admins could help with profiling data).  There
could be considerable difficulty getting good answers given the
atmosphere in the secretariat, but what would we lose?  At worst, a
couple hours of time.  The benefit for the IETF is potentially much
greater.

Religion is the opium of them asses.		--Karlm Arx

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:26:33 -0600 (MDT)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, stanislav shalunov wrote:

> Not what they do exactly in each procedure, but just how much time 
> is spent there.  Then we can identify pieces that would benefit from 
> automation most.

I am not sure I agree that we need to profile Secretariat. To me, this 
implies optimizing Secretariat work. We are not Secretariat managers 
and should leave internal Secretariat optimizations to Secretariat.

We should be optimizing IETF-Secretariat interaction and interfaces 
instead of micro-managing Secretariat work.

For example, we know what the current draft submission interface is. 
We know how long it takes to post a draft. It does not have to take 
that long. So we write a spec that says "valid drafts must be posted 
immediately" (among many other things). As reasonable people we all 
assume automation behind that interface, but if Secretariat can 
support our requirements without automation, nobody should object!

Similarly, we know what the current ticket interface is. We know of 
several big problems such as visibility and accountability. We suggest 
what the interface should be and polish our suggestions in cooperation 
with Secretariat and IETF. It would be up to Secretariat to find the 
right tools to implement the interface.

Note that none of the above requires or can benefit from profiling 
current secretariat activities.

If we start profiling secretariat, IETF should hire an internal IT 
team instead of outsourcing its own technical support. When you 
outsource, you trust the external team to do their best to satisfy 
your requirements. You pay them if they do. You find somebody else (or 
do the work internally) if they do not. And then you go out of 
business if your requirements are unreasonable.

> I was silently assuming that draft advance takes up significant 
> amount of human administrative resources.  I suppose I don't really 
> know if that's the case.

What's more important, is that posting delay is unreasonable and I-D 
archive lacks many essential features. We know it does not have to be 
that way, so we document what the interfaces should be. IETF reviews 
and eventually asks Secretariat to implement our specs.

> Carl's suggestion of conducting interviews with the secretariat 
> folks is quite sound.  I would venture to add that interviewing the 
> admins might actually make even more sense than interviewing the 
> programmers: ...

I do not object to information gathering, and I think both admins and 
programmers may provide interesting information. However, again, we 
should not manage Secretariat, so while I am curious about their 
internals, I am not sure the specs we write should be affected by 
those internals beyond perhaps some kind of a "migration path" 
arguments.

Carl may want to know what happens to the draft or ticket when it is 
e-mailed to Secretariat. I am also curious, but (migration issues 
aside) I am not sure it makes any difference for us.

Alex.