Subject: Tools a bit chatty

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:06:37 -0400

Three of our AVT documents were approved today and as a result I received a
burst of twenty-one messages. For each document I got:

- three state change notices: Approved-announcement to be sent,
Approved-announcement sent, and RFC Ed Queue

- the IETF-announce notice, copied to AVT Chairs and the AVT list

- the RFC Editor notice

and of course, it hasn't stopped: I've just started receiving the IANA action
notices.

I could do without two of the state change notices for sure, since the sequence
is pretty well fixed and automatic. Obviously I could do without pretty well all
of the others, too, but I suppose different people have differewnt requirements.
Still, could we discuss what could be omitted? Maybe we can find some common ground.

Tom Taylor

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:26:19 +0200

Hi Tom,

I will add the tools-development mailing list to this reply as I think
this do have to do with requirements for future datatracker development.

> Approved-announcement sent, and RFC Ed Queue

These are not actually automatic. They are handled by the secretariat
and are result of their actions. The first one is entered when the
secretariat process the ADs approval email. The second when the
secretariat has made the announcement email go out, and the third when
the RFC-editor has been notified about the document.

> - the IETF-announce notice, copied to AVT Chairs and the AVT list

Yes, these are the public messages.

> - the RFC Editor notice

Yes, which  primarily is intended for the authors, but you as potential
document shepherd should ensure that there are a response.

> and of course, it hasn't stopped: I've just started receiving the IANA

Yes, another email that usually contains questions that the document
shepherd need to ensure are answered.

> of the others, too, but I suppose different people have differewnt

As I said, they are not really automatic as you think. There is human
action behind them. I think I have had one case the last 3,5 years when
thinks didn't work as expected.

> Still, could we discuss what could be omitted? Maybe we can find some

Currently the datatracker will send email to everyone on the
notification list for all state changes. The default set on the
notification list are WG chairs and authors.

I think to reduce the number of emails we need to define more roles and
define which state transitions are of interest for the different roles.
This means a substantial change to the datatracker. I think this part
can be considered in the future improvements and extensions. I strongly
believe the WG chairs will get a different perspective on things when
they actually get a tool that handles the WG process in a reasonable way.

I personally do appreciate the mail notifications. Maybe less for
documents that I am responsible when I normally anyway have the state
easily available on my dashboard and check if often. But for drafts that
I am a contributor or otherwise involved I do really like to get the
messages.

cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:53:10 -0500

I think working group chairs who get enough documents approved for this to 
be an issue DO deserve our congratulations :-)

May we all have this problem!

Spencer

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:36:52 -0400

> define which state transitions are of interest for the different roles.

Or, we could just add headers, when not already present, to indicate things 
like what document the mail refers to and what the new state is.  Then the 
determination of which messages are "of interest" can be made by each 
recipient in his or her mail filtering policy, where it belongs.

-- Jeff