Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Future proceedings: create a static set of files, or generate them when they're viewed?

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:32:09 -0600

As I mentioned in my previous note to this list, there's a design 
decision that makes a pretty big difference on what the code we would 
maintain needs to look like.

Do we want to generate the final proceedings for some future meeting as 
a self-contained, exportable, set of files (which could be moved to 
www.ietf.org for example), or do we want to make it so that you view 
those proceedings on the datatracker (building the views as needed)?

We've had several people propose that we just start using the current 
meeting materials page _as_ the proceedings (adding any necessary detail 
that's missing). On production, we've already locked away that page for 
IETF94, so I've put a copy up here with an extended corrections cutoff date:
https://dt-test.rjsparks.org/meeting/94/materials.html

If we used that page as the proceedings, or something derived from it, 
or generated, on demand, pages that looked more like the proceedings we 
have now, it would mean allowing the proceedings for a given meeting to 
_change_ past the point they were declared "official".

Some of that change we want (when we change the skin of the site, 
letting the skin of the proceedings change is a good thing). The 
_content_  of the proceedings wouldn't normally change. We would build 
the UI such that normal folks couldn't upload an updated set of slides 
past the cutoff point for example. But we would leave it such that the 
secretariat could, given a sufficiently exceptional reason and direction 
from the right body.

I think that would be ok. It would result in a smaller number of moving 
parts, compared to exporting a set of pages to be served from somewhere 
else.

If we wanted, we could also make a button that would export the pages so 
they could be put into a tarball for archival storage.

Thoughts?

RjS

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:33:18 +0000

On 1/7/16, 1:32 PM, "TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT on behalf of Robert Sparks"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]>
wrote:

Hi!

I see that in the agenda for tomorrow there are separate items related to
"Meeting Materials Management" and "Interim Meeting Management" -- not
knowing the whole context of the second item, I think that what we want
(it has come up in the WG Chairs list) is for the proceedings to not
necessarily be just for a meeting (IETF 94, for example), but for the
period between two meetings (e.g. Between IETF 93 and IETF 94).  This way
when looking at the proceedings for a WG people can see the whole story
(including interims, and physical meetings, and even an ad hoc update of
the progress) for that period of time in a single place.

>those proceedings on the datatracker (building the views as needed)?

I don't have a strong opinion, but because we can see them in
www.ietf.org, then I would go with that first option.  Of course,
redirection can solve anything.

>_change_ past the point they were declared "official".

All that sounds fine to me, with the "period of time" caveat from above.

My 1c.

Alvaro.