Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Bug when Adding a document to the tracker

Ole Laursen <> Thu, 23 February 2012 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13DD21F8888; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.78
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.197, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SYemOrqkM5mU; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE73221F8880; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:20:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so1283886vbb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:20:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l14mr1538937vde.62.1330028458260; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:20:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:20:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ole Laursen <>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:20:38 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <>, Robert Sparks <>, Russ Housley <>, The IESG <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/4VYtdSpLky+U980cA1Q1gHDHAawVL7GtH+R9lX1K3WT1S4dpSkrNhEDYoas5mhTqUyQQ
Subject: Re: [iola-conversion-tool] Bug when Adding a document to the tracker
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the IOLA / DB Schema Conversion Tool Project <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:21:00 -0000

2012/2/23 Henrik Levkowetz <>om>:
> Ok, so if this is used by the IESG or some ADs during the IESG processing,
> we should support it.  Do we have a straightforward way of associating a
> non-WG document with an area independently of who the sponsoring AD is?
> Since areas are groups, too, we should be able to have an association with
> the area in the same way that wg documents are associated with a WG, I think.

Yes. It sounds like we need to keep track of the area for a few
individually submitted documents here that conceptually belong to an
area, in the same way as WG drafts belong to a WG? Is that correct?

If so, I suggest we just associate the document with the area instead
of the phony individual group and be done with it. I can add some UI
for that. Does that sound agreeable?