Subject: [appsdir] gentle reminder... :-)

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:46:31 +0200 (CEST)

as there are quite a number of review wich we wait for in the next few 
days, it's quicker if I just point to

  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker

thus in the top part reviwers can check their dates :-)

all the best!

PS: IMHO the latest LC drafts do not seem at a quick glance to have really 
AppsDir isses, but if the ADs wishes some of the to be in the list, just 
ask!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:46:32 -0700

>   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker

That's a pretty interesting page, but it doesn't seem to be cited in the 
wiki's home page.  Possibly not anywhere else, either.

Any objections to adding it there?

Also, looking at the ietf home page, I don't see anything that points to 
"areas", including /not/ under the obscure Resources>wikis sequence. 
There is a pointer to 'areas' under http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/, 
but that strikes me as too well-buried to be useful from the unfamiliar 
user.

I did, finally, find tools.ietf.org/area, but it's not cited on the IETF 
home page.

When all the real "grassroots" work is in working groups, then 
organizing everything by that one attribute makes sense.  But as soon as 
we have other area-based activities, such as directorates, we should 
tout the fact pretty high up in the website indexes.

Thoughts?

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:15:26 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 09:46 13-08-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>That's a pretty interesting page, but it doesn't seem to be cited in 
>the wiki's home page.  Possibly not anywhere else, either.

The tracker web page is mentioned on 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate

>Also, looking at the ietf home page, I don't see anything that 
>points to "areas", including /not/ under the obscure Resources>wikis 
>sequence. There is a pointer to 'areas' under 
>http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/, but that strikes me as too 
>well-buried to be useful from the unfamiliar user.

I haven't used http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/  The AppsDir web 
page is listed on http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html

Information is scattered around.  The unfamiliar user gets lost 
trying to find his/her way through the IETF sites.  The problem might 
be that documentation is not maintained.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:45:37 -0700

> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate

Right.  Very buried.

> I haven't used http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/  The AppsDir web page
> is listed on http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html

Again, my point exactly.  Buried under "iesg".

> Information is scattered around.  The unfamiliar user gets lost trying
> to find his/her way through the IETF sites.  The problem might be that
> documentation is not maintained.

This is about web site organization, and thinking in terms of a fresh 
user who does not already know what's on the site.

Areas have become considerably more than mere aggregations of working 
groups.  The web site ought to reflect that.

d/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:07:03 -0700

Hi Dave,
>Right.  Very buried.

Yes.

>This is about web site organization, and thinking in terms of a 
>fresh user who does not already know what's on the site.

Agreed.

>Areas have become considerably more than mere aggregations of 
>working groups.  The web site ought to reflect that.

The IETF decided to redo its web site over a year ago.  I don't think 
that much thought was given to the "thinking in terms of a fresh 
user".  Information is scattered around various sites (re. 
aggregation comment).  This is where I'll sigh and go and do something else.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:03:21 +0100

Hi Dave,

On 13/08/2013 17:46, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Also, looking at the ietf home page, I don't see anything that points 
> to "areas", including /not/ under the obscure Resources>wikis 
> I did, finally, find tools.ietf.org/area, but it's not cited on the 
> IETF home page.
>
> organizing everything by that one attribute makes sense.  But as soon 
> as we have other area-based activities, such as directorates, we 
> should tout the fact pretty high up in the website indexes.
>
> Thoughts?
I think adding a link would be a good idea.

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:28:13 +0200 (CEST)

yes... it is true... I'll add a link to the wiki pages I can edit as soon 
as I'm back next week and I have a better connectivity... But as SM 
suggests, we shoul also include better visibility in the general IETF web 
pages.

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

>> "areas", including /not/ under the obscure Resources>wikis sequence. There 
>> is a pointer to 'areas' under http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/, but that 
>> strikes me as too well-buried to be useful from the unfamiliar user.
>> 
>> When all the real "grassroots" work is in working groups, then organizing 
>> everything by that one attribute makes sense.  But as soon as we have other 
>> area-based activities, such as directorates, we should tout the fact pretty 
>> high up in the website indexes.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> appsdir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/appsdir
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:24:22 +0200

> But as SM suggests,
> we shoul also include better visibility in the general IETF web pages.

The IESG is listening; I'm putting this on the agenda for informal
discussion next week.

Barry

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:26:17 -0700

On 8/14/2013 6:28 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
> I'll add a link to the wiki pages I can edit as soon as I'm back next
> week and I have a better connectivity...

sound good.  thanks!

(and to barry for the iesg reference.)

d/

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:24:05 +0200 (CEST)

>> week and I have a better connectivity...

I did add a set of more evident links to our AppsDir wiki pages thus they 
should show more the http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker 
page.

Now it's up to ADs and IESG to decide how to make this also more generally 
visible!

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:31:22 -0700

On 8/22/2013 9:24 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
> I did add a set of more evident links to our AppsDir wiki pages thus
> they should show more the
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker page.
>
> Now it's up to ADs and IESG to decide how to make this also more
> generally visible!

ack. tnx.

and while we have this thread going, I'll wonder out loud about an 
additional thought:

    The sequence of reviews various people do for a doc should be linked 
to the document history in the datatracker.  (A link, not a copy, in the 
tracker.)

    This would require some sort of addressing convention for the review 
-- and possibly more conventions than that -- probably for one of the 
<draft name>.* addresses.

I think it should all be kept quite simple and open.  For example, 
anyone wanting to offer a "review" should be allowed to; don't restrict 
the sources of reviews.  If someone abuses that, then remove the link by 
hand.  My guess is that that won't be a significant problem.

d/

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:40:04 +0200 (CEST)

> and while we have this thread going, I'll wonder out loud about an additional 
> thought:
>
>   The sequence of reviews various people do for a doc should be linked to 
> the document history in the datatracker.  (A link, not a copy, in the 
> tracker.)

that's a good idea (and we should include all reviews, wherever they come 
from).

>   This would require some sort of addressing convention for the review -- 
> and possibly more conventions than that -- probably for one of the <draft 
> name>.* addresses.

this is the tricky part... reviews usually are e-mail messages, with not 
always consistent Subject line (as this is inserted by the sender), and 
errors in this sort of tagging are always possible. Making the Datatracker 
be able to pick up automatically from ML archives (like apps-discuss) 
seems somehow a non simple problem to solve. Maybe enabling some other 
function (a revier does send the e-mail review message ALSO to a special 
robot address which then makes the link from the ML to Datatracker 
automatically); something similar to what we have for

    <[email-masked]>

e.g.

To: bla bla bla...
cc: <[email-masked]>

> I think it should all be kept quite simple and open.  For example, anyone 
> wanting to offer a "review" should be allowed to; don't restrict the sources 
> of reviews.  If someone abuses that, then remove the link by hand.  My guess 
> is that that won't be a significant problem.
>

I Agree.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 06:45:02 -0700

On 8/23/2013 6:40 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
> errors in this sort of tagging are always possible. Making the

Fair point.  And as you describe it, I'd have to agree that some 
percentage of folk are certain to screw it up, given its free-form nature.

> Datatracker be able to pick up automatically from ML archives (like
> apps-discuss) seems somehow a non simple problem to solve. Maybe
> enabling some other function (a revier does send the e-mail review
> message ALSO to a special robot address which then makes the link from
> the ML to Datatracker automatically); something similar to what we have for
>

yeah, that seems reasonable.

if a reviewer doesn't remember to include this address, it's not a big 
deal for the doc shepherd (or whoever) to forward to that address.  so 
this approach seems like it has both simplicity and robustness to it.

d/