Subject: [Tools-implementation] Agenda for 30Jun

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:46:18 -0500

Agenda for 30Jun:

https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m9b006a74483373e0fd53cd6b12afc39c

* Briefly review current ideas of what we're focusing on before and 
immediately
after IETF 108

* Plan for a set of workshops to explore reducing technical-debt, 
removing cruft, and identifying larger architectural goals. (I'll send 
mail with a longer description of this soon).

* Build a plan for deciding what to do with datatracker tickets that are 
in the
"review" state. See https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/report/37

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:30:24 -0400

> * Build a plan for deciding what to do with datatracker tickets that are in the

https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/2786
Seems like this is really a big impact to Colin and/or the Secretariat.  Has anyone looked at whether this is easy?

https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/2679
Do we have any idea whether this is really causing trouble in practice?

Russ

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 19:02:34 +0200

> Do we have any idea whether this is really causing trouble in practice?

There's been a few questions about this, triggering an update of the
submission page to recommend the use of the --prep switch.  With recent
updates to xml2rfc's --expand switch, the recommendation should be updated
accordingly.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:24:29 -0500

> Seems like this is really a big impact to Colin and/or the Secretariat.  Has anyone looked at whether this is easy?

It is not a simple thing. We need to make an architectural decision 
trying to figure it out (as captured in the ticket.

The decision tree includes at least these options:

  * Do we change roles of one group as a side-effect of changes in 
another group?

  * Do we add complexity to the views of a group so that inferred 
membership like this is computed during each view?

  * Do we push this onto the secretariat (or the IRTF chair), making 
sure that the UI lets them do the extra work? (The recent changes to the 
group edit form _will_ let them do the work).

The 3rd is more like what we do with the IESG, but the user-story is 
different there - the IESG changes on a well defined clock, and the work 
to do can happen in one big chunk. The IRSG changes infrequently (as 
chairs are added or removed), and it's more likely that a human process 
will forget to make the change in two places.

So, I'm sort of leaning towards the first option, but still have some 
reservations. Edits through the group edit form could certainly perform 
the side-effect logic (and leave groupevent comments about having done 
so). We would probably also want to change the form used by the admin to 
do the same thing.

RjS

ps. What I want to talk about Tuesday is how we go through this list and 
make it smaller, not dive into individual tickets. Do we schedule 3 a 
week and work them out by email or something like that? I probably need 
to do a priority pass and maybe categorize the ones where we need a 
policy decision vs an architectural decision vs just research into what 
the code is actually doing. But maybe this group can help with that 
categorization.

---

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:08:17 +0100

> https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m9b006a74483373e0fd53cd6b12afc39c

What time is the call today? I thought it was 7 minutes ago, but I either misremembered the time or my timezone offset calculation is off.

> -- 
> Tools-implementation mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-implementation
>

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:11:24 -0500

It's at the top of the next hour (12 central, 1 eastern).

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:13:39 -0400

I thought we moved it to 2:00 Eastern for Jay.

Russ

> On Jun 30, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Robert Sparks <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:22:01 -0500

Um no?

This isn't the normal tools call - this is tools-implementation team 
specific.

RjS

---

From: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:30:47 +0000

I got confused then too.  I'll be 30-35 min late because I'm double booked now.  Sorry.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tools-implementation <[email-masked]> On
> Behalf Of Robert Sparks
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 12:22 PM
> To: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; Alexey Melnikov
> <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [Tools-implementation] Agenda for 30Jun
> 
> Um no?
> 
> This isn't the normal tools call - this is tools-implementation team specific.
> 
> RjS
> 
> >>> What time is the call today? I thought it was 7 minutes ago, but I either
> misremembered the time or my timezone offset calculation is off.
> >>>
> >>>> immediately after IETF 108
> >>>>
> >>>> removing cruft, and identifying larger architectural goals. (I'll
> >>>> send mail with a longer description of this soon).
> >>>>
> >>>> * Build a plan for deciding what to do with datatracker tickets
> >>>> that are in the "review" state. See
> >>>> https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/report/37
> >>>>
> >>>> --

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:33:21 -0500

So where did the confusion come from?

The webex link I sent has ics on its page.

RjS

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:50:16 -0500

Notes from today's chat. Roman - we finished before you could get there :).

> * Briefly review current ideas of what we're focusing on before and 
We are working on meetecho integration with the datatracker and codimd.

The next thing in the datatracker plan is to transition to postgresql, 
but we're going to delay that to allow Henrik time to move the 
rfc-format tools implementation draft along and help with the next rev 
of the format drafts.

> mail with a longer description of this soon).
We've set the first of these meetings for next Tuesday 7 Jul 10-12 
Central. I'll be sending a webex later today. The plan for this first 
session is to brainstorm about the things that we should do but haven't 
been able to for time reasons so far, and to talk about things we might 
do to make both management and improvement of the whole tools suit more 
effective in the long run. Having a few things listed ahead of time to 
bring up next Tuesday would be useful.
> "review" state. See https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/report/37
I'm going to send 2-3 tickets a week out on Fridays with the expectation 
that we come to resolution on what to do about them by the following 
Friday. (This week, I'll send one in addition to the one we already have 
in flight). Anything that we can't come to closure in email about in 
that time, we can have a short call to conlcude on during the following 
week (or so as schedules permit).

For the one we started discussion on already 
(https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/2786), we came to the 
conclusion that with the recent improvements to the group edit form, 
it's probably reasonable to let Colin manage this manually. I'll follow 
up with him to see if he agrees.

---

From: Roman Danyliw <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:53:06 +0000

Thanks for the notes.  So sorry for missing this.

> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 1:50 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Tools-implementation] Notes from 30Jun tools-implementation
> discussion
> 
> The next thing in the datatracker plan is to transition to postgresql, but we're
> going to delay that to allow Henrik time to move the rfc-format tools
> implementation draft along and help with the next rev of the format drafts.
> 
> >
> We've set the first of these meetings for next Tuesday 7 Jul 10-12 Central. I'll
> be sending a webex later today. The plan for this first session is to brainstorm
> about the things that we should do but haven't been able to for time reasons
> so far, and to talk about things we might do to make both management and
> improvement of the whole tools suit more effective in the long run. Having a
> few things listed ahead of time to bring up next Tuesday would be useful.
> >
> > * Build a plan for deciding what to do with datatracker tickets that
> > are in the "review" state. See
> I'm going to send 2-3 tickets a week out on Fridays with the expectation that
> we come to resolution on what to do about them by the following Friday. (This
> week, I'll send one in addition to the one we already have in flight). Anything
> that we can't come to closure in email about in that time, we can have a short
> call to conlcude on during the following week (or so as schedules permit).
> 
> (https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/2786), we came to the conclusion
> that with the recent improvements to the group edit form, it's probably
> reasonable to let Colin manage this manually. I'll follow up with him to see if he
> agrees.
> 
> 
> --