Subject: [Gen-art] Structured format for reviews/issues reports

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:07:59 +0100

Hi.

When the gen-art team (or anyone else) is writing reviews, much of the 
review is a sequence of issues.

With the increased use of issue trackers it seems pretty stupid that 
somebody has to unpick a text email to separate a bunch of issues to 
stuff them into an issue tracker.

So how about an xml schema for a review and individual issues (shouldn't 
be too complex) and a tool to split them insert them into a issue 
tracker, plus some suitable pretty printing to make them easy to read as 
a review.

I am game to help if people think it is interesting.

Regards,
Elwyn

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:52:08 -0400

> I am game to help if people think it is interesting.

No objection.  Whatever the boss says.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 14:08:58 +0200

> I am game to help if people think it is interesting.

I'm interested.

Anything that lets me type less for the same amount of information 
transferred...

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:54:34 -0400

I find the issue trackers hard to work with.  I don't mind putting some 
tags in my review if that will help.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:32:01 -0700

Personally, I think that the separation of discussion points
into "issues" is one of the important ways in which the chair
of a working group moderates the discussion.  I don't think it
is "stupid" at all.

I think we definitely could use some tools for managing an
issue list and posting the status of issues, commenting on
issues, etc.,  but I wouldn't want to take the authority of
deciding what is or isn't a new issue, merging issues, or
managing the issue list away from the working
group chair.

Larry

> > When the gen-art team (or anyone else) is writing reviews, 
> much of the review is a sequence of issues.
> > 

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

---

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:46:24 +0100

I was envisaging that the moderator of the issues list would be able to 
feed the xml review doc to some tool that would present the points in 
the review as a list which the moderator could then allocate to an 
existing issue (hopefully an informed reviewer might have included an 
issue number if it was already in play), create a new issue for the item 
or reject it.Maybe create an automated response as well.

Regards,
Elwyn

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:44:10 +0200

Hi Elwyn,

  I find your note below interesting in view of the thoughts I've had
for some time about issue tracking for the IETF (see the note I just
sent to [email-masked], with a copy to [email-masked]).  The
funny thing is that I never took the step of thinking about this from
an XML viewpoint.

More inline:

> stuff them into an issue tracker.

Yes :-)

> tracker, plus some suitable pretty printing to make them easy to read as 

Sounds like a good idea to me.

> I am game to help if people think it is interesting.

Ok!  I see there's a few follow-up messages - would be nice if we could
get something like this underway.

	Henrik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:04:39 +0200

This makes sense to me, but it needs to fit in a context:

1. Review assignments are dispatched to reviewers, currently by
hand (by Mary Barnes), but that really ought to be automated.

2. Reviews should be systematically copied to the document
shepherds (the AD and usually one of the WG chairs) and the authors,
and these addresses need to be automatically collected.

So whatever form or format is adopted for reviews, it needs to
fit into a specific workflow:

Document becomes ready for review (e.g. IETF LC or IESG Evaluation)
Human or tool assigns it to a reviwer.
Tool sends blank review form to reviewer.
Reviewer fills in form.
Tool sends completed review to shepherds, ADs, authors
Tool allows shepherd to marshall issues into issue tracker

or something like that

    Brian