Subject: I-D tracker automatic reminders

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 12:17:20 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

I raised this issue in IETF59 WG chairs' training, but I think it 
might be useful to discuss it with a wider audience as well.

I think it would be useful for I-D tracker to send "reminders" of open
issues to the responsible person(s) after a document stays too long in
a state, when by the process, it should have moved into a new state.
(What could constitute "too long" varies by the state, but could be
1-4 weeks for example.)

For example, if a document stays too long in states:
 - AD evaluation or Expert Review, remind the AD
 - Publication Requested, remind the AD
 - Last Call Requested, remind the secretariat
 - In Last Call, after the last call has long since expired, remind 
the AD and WG chairs
 - Waiting for AD go-ahead, remind the AD
 - IESG evaluation, remind the AD
 - Defer, remind the secretariat [[ this should not be possible ]]
 - DNP - Waiting for AD note, remind the AD
 - DNP - Announcemnt to be sent, remind the secretariat
 - Approved - "", remind the secretariat
 - Different AD -followup, revised ID needed etc. states -- remind AD, 
   and WG chairs

Obviously, in most cases, "remind the AD" really means "remind the AD
to remind other people to hurry up" -- but in these cases, the AD may
be the only responsible person visible to the tracker, so there really
isn't anyone else to remind here :)

It might be nice to be able to track the RFC-editor process (esp. if
IANA causes blockage, or some normative refs cause trouble), but one
might argue that that's beyond the scope of I-D tracker even if
important.

Actually, as I think more information can't hurt, all of these
reminders could be sent to some kind of mail alias, including at least
the AD and WG chairs.

Other thoughts?  Is too many "reminders" or messages about document
progress (or lack thereof) too bothersome?

Personally, I'd find these important as more often than not, someone 
(whether AD, WG chair, document editor, ....) forgets to pursue 
something and the ball gets dropped until someone reminds that the 
document should be moving forward.. :-)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:10:27 -0800

Pekka,

>> document should be moving forward.. :-)

	Interestingly, we (the proto-team) are looking at various
	pilot projects that are designed to address parts of what
	you describe above. One of these pilot projects has as
	its objective to allow the WG chair to do much of what is
	being call "shepherding" (shepherding covers much of what
	you describe above; see draft-ietf-proto-shepherding-00.txt). 

	Some of our initial ideas for a pilot project that seeks
	to most closely address your issues is documented in 
	draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-discuss-pilot-00.txt.

	As always, your comments greatly appreciated.

	Dave

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:33:08 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 1:17 AM
> Subject: I-D tracker automatic reminders
...
> (What could constitute "too long" varies by the state, but could be
...

As a reviewer and WG chair, I'd find this useful.

Randy

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:16:02 -0800

Pekka,

query: for each document, there is a list of people who get warned about 
state changes.

Do you (and others) think that this list should also be warned about state 
non-changes?

Since a lot of our "stuck" documents are in state "new I-D needed", and the 
CC list often includes the document editors, it could be useful to remind 
them that the document is not going forward....

(as per current procedure, when a document is entered into the tracker, the 
field is supposed to be populated with the address-of-record for the WG 
chairs and the document editors. We haven't tried to add that info to all 
documents currently in the pipeline....)

                          Harald

---

From: "Rik Drummond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:06:55 -0500

I think warning WG Chairs and editors about state non-changes would be very
helpful. Rik 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 7:16 PM
To: Pekka Savola; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I-D tracker automatic reminders

Pekka,

                          Harald

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 17:54:22 +0300 (EEST)

> Do you (and others) think that this list should also be warned about state 

Yes.

> documents currently in the pipeline....)

Also, these often are *not* updated.  So, I think that would have to 
become more or less de-facto policy as well (or better yet, automated 
somehow).

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 17:45:46 -0800

>them that the document is not going forward....

My concern is that automatic reminders could increase friction for
problematic documents.  A chair that is frustrated by an unresponsive
document editor is not going to be helped by getting a reminder every 2
weeks that the update is still pending.  Perhaps I'm not looking at it
the right way, but I expect that unless we deploy an incredibly flexible
(and complex) system, the frustration at unwanted reminders will be
greater than the benefit of useful ones.

  Bill

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 19:08:46 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Bill Fenner" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 6:45 PM
...
...

One way to over-engineer this is to permit whoever "has the token"
to populate a "promised completion time" field, distinct from the
"suggested completion time" populated by "the process".  Once
the later of the two times has passed, the reminders could start.

However, when faced with an unresponsive editor, I'd welcome an
email every two weeks.  It'd remind me that I as a WG chair need to
do something.  In those potentially confrontational situations, my
own tendency is to hide in a corner and hope the problem goes away.
The reminder would help me maintain my resolve.

Randy

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:44:40 +0300 (EEST)

> greater than the benefit of useful ones.

I can certainly see this, having been in this specific situation.

The message needs appropriate tune. 

Not:

 "Why aren't these documents progressing?!!? It's your responsibility 
  to make sure they move along!!!"

But rather for example:

 "Could you try prodding the appropriate parties to make sure the 
  revisions are in progress.  Thanks!"

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:28:40 -0700

> greater than the benefit of useful ones.

Ummmm, doesn't procmail (or similar) handle this problem?  I don't think
you need to replicate that power in the I-D tracker.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG