Subject: HEADS UP: Default notification list change

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:36:52 -0500

IESG/Chairs,

I want to give you a heads up about a small change in the datatracker 
that's getting deployed next week that may have surprising implications 
if you're not aware of it.

IESG: As we discussed, we're changing the default notification list for 
*new* documents coming into the tracker from 
"[email-masked]" to "[email-masked]", 
meaning that the WG will get Cc'ed on notifications and IESG Evaluation 
unless you change it. The expectation is that things will operate just 
as they do today (i.e., that it is between you and your chairs whether 
you want this stuff Cc'ed to the WG), but that when you forget to check, 
you will accidentally be sending more mail than you intended to the WG 
instead of less.

Chairs: This field gets populated at document adoption time, and you 
have the ability to edit it. Please consult with your AD about whether 
you want to edit the WG out of the field.

Again, keep in mind that this only changes the *default* list, and it 
only changes it for *newly* added documents. Even so, we want to avoid 
astonishment.

Your IESG tools liaison,

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:54:36 -0500

Can't even type straight:

On 9/24/14 10:36 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> As we discussed, we're changing the default notification list for 
> "[email-masked]" to "[email-masked]"

*and the WG list*.

(.all doesn't include the WG.)

Read what I mean, not what I write.

pr

---

From: Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:06:17 +0200

That's what I tell my compiler every time! ;-)

Thanks for the update,

Julien

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:09:53 -0500

OK, I seem to have confused some folks, so let me try one last time to 
unmuddle. My apologies for my broken brain:

<docname>@tools.ietf.org is the authors.
<docname>[email-masked] is the authors and the chairs (and the AD, 
once it starts IESG processing).

The default notification list for WG documents is currently 
"<wg>[email-masked], <docname>@tools.ietf.org".

The default notification list for WG documents is changing to 
"<docname>[email-masked], <wg>@ietf.org".

Also, when a shepherd is assigned, the shepherd's email address is added 
to the list.

I hope that makes more sense.

pr

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:11:44 -0500

On 9/24/14 1:09 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> <docname>[email-masked] is the authors and the chairs (and the 
> AD, once it starts IESG processing).
>
> Also, when a shepherd is assigned, the shepherd's email address is 
> added to the list.
>
Also, that's just what the Notification gets set to by default. You can 
always change it.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:22:48 -0400

Pete,

Below is clear as far as it goes, but it leaves me with two questions:

- You say "the default notification list", which implies to me that this 
can be overridden. How? Can I see and edit this definition somewhere?

- how is this notification list referenced for sending stuff? Is there 
some foo such that <docname>[email-masked] references this 
notification list?

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:41:39 -0500

On 9/24/14 1:22 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> - You say "the default notification list", which implies to me that 
> this can be overridden. How? Can I see and edit this definition 
> somewhere?
You can see it on the Document's main page.

Look at <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-threats/> for 
example at the line that says:
Send notices to:     [email-masked], 
[email-masked]

At <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-clue-framework/>, you'll see
Send notices to:     No addresses provided

Addresses will get added to that automatically when you pubreq the doc. 
With the upcoming change, when you make a doc a WG item, the group's 
list will automatically get added.

Addresses can be manually added or removed at any time. Right now, only 
the secretariat and ADs can edit the field though. It would be 
reasonable, IMHO, to let wg chairs do that too (you'd see a pencil, 
similar to what you see now for the shepherd or the intended status.)

> some foo such that <docname>[email-masked] references this 
This field gets used internally in the tracker to add addresses to the 
messages it sends when document events happen (such states change, 
ballots are entered, etc.)

There is no @tools.ietf.org alias that refers directly to it.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:27:38 -0400

> Send notices to:     No addresses provided

I never knew that - never noticed.

> similar to what you see now for the shepherd or the intended status.)

So for now chairs have no control over this. So I guess it doesn't 
matter much to us. :-)

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:38:11 -0500

> So for now chairs have no control over this. So I guess it doesn't 
Well, as part of the chair/shepherd activities, checking occasionally 
that its set to the best values it can be given the context of a given 
draft would be good. Until its changed so that you can edit it directly, 
you can always ask the secretariat or an AD to make the change for you.
>>>> added

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:23:19 -0400

>>> ballots are entered, etc.)

This pretty much answers my question - just what is a notification?

Right now, the wg list gets a message every time a wg doc gets submitted ("I-D Action:" etc).  And I know the authors get a message every time the chair changes the state on a document.  (That must be a pain when the chairs do house-cleaning).

So this field is not to change the already existing notifications, but to add additional recipients to what the system does?  Right?  There's no default to that field that is making those notifications happen, they are built in to the system?  (I.e., chairs don't have to monitor to make sure that the field's default is not overwritten and that no redesign of the system changes the system's default)

--Sandy

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:12:13 -0500

On 9/26/14 6:23 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> So this field is not to change the already existing notifications, but to add additional recipients to what the system does?  Right?
So, first, this is not a new field, and has been part of where many 
messages are sent for a long time.

The start of this thread was a heads up that the values that 
automatically get put into the field at various points in the document 
lifecycle is changing
to reach more people than what the current set does.

For some things the tracker sends mail about, there are some hard-coded 
(or calculated) recipients.
The 'I-D Action' messages you call out, for example, have purely 
calculated recipients - the notify field is not currently used there.
(The message is sent from 
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/browser/trunk/ietf/submit/mail.py#L86>. 
The to calculation looks like:
  m.to = settings.IDSUBMIT_ANNOUNCE_LIST_EMAIL
  if submission.group and submission.group.list_email:
      m.cc = submission.group.list_email
)

For other things, like the messages that talk about state changes to a 
document (those with a Subject that starts as
"ID Tracker State Update Notice:") the Notify field is the only source 
of recipients.
The relevant code for that is at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/browser/trunk/ietf/doc/mails.py#L17>

If you're curious, you can look through those two files to see how the 
recipients are determined for most of the other messages the tracker 
will send.

> There's no default to that field that is making those notifications happen, they are built in to the system?  (I.e., chairs don't have to monitor to make sure that the field's default is not overwritten and that no redesign of the system changes the system's default)
I hope the above answers your question.
As I said first, the notify field has been used for recipient 
calculation for many messages for a long time now.
Looking at it occasionally to make sure it's the best set for the 
current context of the document is a good idea.
You shouldn't have to monitor it closely against surprising changes.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:20:27 -0400

There's a subtext in this announcement that's implied but not directly
stated, which is (I assume) that the IESG wants this change because they
want the WG participants to be aware of state changes in WG documents.

Assuming this is correct, when would it be appropriate (if ever) to remove
the WG from the notification list for a WG draft?

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Sep 25, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
> The start of this thread was a heads up that the values that automatically
> get put into the field at various points in the document lifecycle is
> changing
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/browser/trunk/ietf/submit/mail.py#L86>
> "ID Tracker State Update Notice:") the Notify field is the only source of
> recipients.
> recipients are determined for most of the other messages the tracker will
> send.
>
> As I said first, the notify field has been used for recipient calculation
> for many messages for a long time now.
> Looking at it occasionally to make sure it's the best set for the current
> context of the document is a good idea.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 10:53:45 -0500

On 9/26/14 10:20 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> stated, which is (I assume) that the IESG wants this change because 
> they want the WG participants to be aware of state changes in WG 
> documents.

The subtext (if there is any) is that the IESG (or at least some members 
thereof) want this change because they want the WG participants to be 
aware of the IESG Evaluation discussions (DISCUSSes and COMMENTs). The 
notification list gets used for who gets Cc'ed on that as well.

> when would it be appropriate (if ever) to remove the WG from the 
> notification list for a WG draft?

When holding that discussion would be "unproductive". :-)

pr

---

From: Suzanne Woolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:44:13 -0400

On Sep 26, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> There's a subtext in this announcement that's implied but not directly stated, which is (I assume) that the IESG wants this change because they want the WG participants to be aware of state changes in WG documents.
> 
> The subtext (if there is any) is that the IESG (or at least some members thereof) want this change because they want the WG participants to be aware of the IESG Evaluation discussions (DISCUSSes and COMMENTs). The notification list gets used for who gets Cc'ed on that as well.

I like that reason.

>> when would it be appropriate (if ever) to remove the WG from the notification list for a WG draft?
> 

:) I can imagine curmudgeons among us who might object to the "clutter", on the grounds that they trust their wgchairs and ADs as their intermediaries and would rather not be bothered ("you read DISCUSSes so I don't have to.") If people don't want to know, I'll defer to that. But I think opening up the default helps keep everybody on their toes.

Suzanne