Subject: Re: Is a new state needed in the WG states for drafts?

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 20:51:04 +0200

Hi,

On 2013-04-03 15:50 Henrik Levkowetz said the following:
> Hi,
> 
> During IETF 86, I sat down with Loa Andersson and Martin Vigoreux to
> talk about how to best use the WG State tracking which is currently
> available in the datatracker.
> 
> I think we sorted out most of the things they would like to do, but
> there were at least one issue which remained, which may need some
> tweaking to the states and code.
> 
> Refering to the state summary at
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/stream-ietf/ :
> 
> The only WG state which exists before "Adopted by a WG"/"WG Document"
> is "Call For Adoption By WG Issued".  But in the case of MPLS, there
> can be a rather large number of documents which are under consideration
> for adoption as WG documents, without an actual call for adoption having
> been issued yet.
> 
> Considering that every WG can choose which, if any, of the states to use,
> what do you think about adding another state which may be used before the
> "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" state, named something like "Candidate
> for WG Adoption"?

Having reviewed the thread started by the message above, there seems to be
mixed feelings.  Some clearly positive, others negative.  However, looking
at only the wgchair comments (excluding AD comments) it seems to me that
there is a reasonably strong consensus that something like this is actually
needed.  Not by all WGs, by all means, but there are some WGs that have a
large number of documents to process for which this would make life much
easier.

The WGs/chairs that don't need it have full freedom to ignore it, of course :-)

Given this, I've added a state "Candidate for WG Adoption" to the WG document
states.  If needed, after gaining experience with it, it can be renamed or
changed so that no new documents can use it.  We're not painting ourselves
into a corner here.

Best regards,

	Henrik