Subject: Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Tools a bit chatty

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.

Tom Taylor skrev:
> 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

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
> action
> notices.

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

> 
> 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.

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
> common ground.
> 

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:55:38 +1200

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

I don't think the number of times this happens in one's life, either
as a document author or as a shepherd, is enough to call it a real
problem. As a gen-art reviewer, I'd actually like to get all state
change messages for each document that I've reviewed, so I'm asking
for more, please.

> 
> 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.

All I ask is that the draft name is always in the subject field.
I actually find the IESG "Protocol Action" and "Document Action"
announcements fairly useless, because they don't include the draft
name in the subject, so automatic or one-glance filtering is impossible.

    Brian