Subject: Re: 76th IETF - WG Chair Training Reminder

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:26:06 +0900

Hi

Can anybody share the material of today's session?
I want to know how to use the issue tracker for a WG doc.
I couldn't attend the training session due to the schedule conflict
with the ISOC FI session.

thanks
ryuji

2009/10/23 IETF Agenda <[email-masked]>:
> There will be a WG Chairs training session held during the Wednesday lunch
> slot (11:30am - 1:00pm) at IETF 76 in Hiroshima. A complimentary lunch
> will be provided. This training is open to all WG chairs, BOF chairs and
> WG Secretaries.
>
> The main topic for the Hiroshima session will be Issue Tracking. Do you
> use an issue tracker to track issues with your WG documents? What are the
> pros and cons to using an issue tracker? How can you obtain access to an
> issue tracker for your WG? And what do you have to do to configure and
> maintain it?
>
> If you would like to attend this session, please RSVP to [email-masked]
> by Thursday, November 5th. The location will be sent to those who RSVP.
>
> Detailed Agenda:
>
> WG Chairs Training
> Wednesday, 1130 - 1300
> ======================
>
> Announcement:
> Datatracker Support for Working Groups (Ed Juskevicius, 10 min)
>
> Main Presentation:
> Issue Tracking for Working Groups (Margaret Wasserman 30 min)
>
> Round Table Discussion:
> Pros and Cons of Using Issue Tracking in IETF WGs (Panelists TBD, 30 min)
>
>

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:39:27 -0500

Attending the session and thinking about the issues I see afterwards made me
I think that before we get to issues trackers there are other simpler things
that improve things.

Timers and reminders:
I would love to have the some tools that remind me (and editors) that
         draft X has not been updated in n months. (every month)
         draft Y expires in m days
         draft Z has not been updated and ID deadline is in 7 days
         WGLC on draft X concluded n days ago and I have not summarized.
         Draft X was advanced to the IESG but IETF LC has not started.
         IETF LC for X has concluded, go check if followup is needed

I'm sure there are more other people can think but this is simple
and can be done with minimal input from chairs.

         Olafur

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:00:01 +0200

Hi Olafur,

See attached perl hack, intended for personal use by editors. Feel free to change, publish or dump it.

Thanks,
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Olafur Gudmundsson
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 23:39
> To: Working Group Chairs
> Subject: Re: 76th IETF - WG Chair Training Reminder
> 
> 
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:08:33 +0100

> I would love to have the some tools that remind me (and editors) that

I agree.

>         WGLC on draft X concluded n days ago and I have not summarized.

Before that one: WGLC concluded and I have to take action.

>         IETF LC for X has concluded, go check if followup is needed

Person X promised to read and comment on draft Y by date Z.  (X can be
more than one person).

In all cases, it'd be great if we could set a date, name and email,
and have the system autogenerate reminders if date passes without action
from the person.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
                                                                  H.L.Mencken

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:49:53 +0900

In the session I mentioned that we are experimenting with the issue
tracker to track WG/document status vs tracking specific document
issues.  Sam (I believe) asked that I talk about this in the discussion
period, but I unfortunately I had to leave prior to the discussion in
order to chair a session ;-)

Over the summer we stared experimenting/using the issue tracker in the
CCAMP WG.  I think a lot of what we've been doing could be replaced by
the discussed changes to the ID tracker, i.e., tracking document WG
state.  We also have started tracking Liaisons/communications.  Perhaps
this would be useful in a general tool as well.

We're still figuring out the best way to use the tool and what we're
doing will likely evolve.  My current thinking, which doesn't exactly
match what's in the DB, is to use one ticket field for for major
document states (e.g., In Expert review, in LC, post LC, etc) and one
for minor state (e.g., waiting for document update, waiting for PROTO
write up, waiting on expert review, etc.) We use the owner field
component fields largely as intended.  We haven't really figured out how
best to use the version, type and status fields.

Of course we'd like states to show up nicely on the WG draft status
page, which to some degree they do, see http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/.
 As well as in the reports,
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/trac/report/3. I'm sure with a few
minutes of Henrik's time he could help us improve our usage, but this
meeting has been just too packed for me to make this happen.  (Also,
kudos again to Henrik for what's there and all the help getting us started!)

In the mean time, we'll keep (ab)using the tool!

Lou

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:41:46 +0900

>         IETF LC for X has concluded, go check if followup is needed

Yes, that would be indescribably nice.

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:16:43 -0500

This is a cute tool, it does some of things I want,
I may think about extending it to issue queries based on WG name rather than
just one editor (at a time) and send email to list of people.

         Olafur