Subject: Tool query: preferred interface for wg tickets to the secretariat

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:37:25 +0200

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]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:04:23 -0700

Hey Henrik,

>> tool draft!  A new version will be out shortly.  Now for something

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

>> milestones, asking questions about procedures, etc.) go by email to

	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.

>> 	that it make sense to put some extra effort into building and

	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)

>> 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)
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:39:05 -0400 (EDT)

>     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: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:08:42 -0700

2) with followup notification via email.

            jak

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:44:42 -0400

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.