Re: [proto-team] Re: PROTO - proceeding on adding PROTO shepherds to the tracker

Hi Lisa,

on 2006-05-16 19:13 Lisa Dusseault said the following:
> Why would this have to be sub-states?  Why not just a state of  
> "Document in external review" and the comments (or a review announce  
> form) can indicate who the review request was sent to?
> 
> Trying to simplify, so if this isn't a real simplification, feel free  
> to ignore.

3, reasons, I think:

1. From my viewpoint, it looses state unnecessarily - "Document In
External Review" could happen at several different points in the
process, both before and after WGLC, and possibly after publication
request and ?? after IETF Last Call.  It would also loose the
difference between a WG document, an IAB document and an IRTF
document.

2. The need for multiple parallel states wouldn't be handled by this
especially well - and what's more, I'd not want to have the ability
to set multiple parallel states available for the major states - for
those, only one should be possible at any given time.

3. Using comments to indicate who the review request was sent to
is essentially equivalent with having a note field for the state -
since you could never be sure that everyone added the annotation
in the same way, you couldn't reliably automate other tools' use
of this information to trigger notifications, actions or whatnot.

Best,

	Henrik

> thx,
> Lisa
> 
> On May 16, 2006, at 2:19 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> 
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> on 2006-05-16 09:35 Brian E Carpenter said the following:
>>> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I think that with no constraint on the amount of change we could
>>>> introduce I'd advocate a fairly complete set of explicit review
>>>> actions, and the possibility of setting more than one sub-state
>>>> at the same time.  Then it's easy for other tools to pick up the
>>>> sub-state and use that to trigger other actions.  Any free-form
>>>> field makes that much harder and less predictable; and reducing
>>>> all the states to very generic ones makes it impossible to kick
>>>> off a particular review dispatch from the state change.
>>>>
>>>> Whether we have the option to include this in the work package I
>>>> don't know, however.
>>>
>>> I would hate the result to be that the tracker artificially
>>> serializes reviews.
>>>
>>> I think that you should include the requirement, but with
>>> flexibility for the implementor. If handling multiple parallel
>>> review-waits is a challenge, the fallback as you say is annotation.
>>> (You already have "5 reviews" as a substate. I was wondering
>>> how that was going to be handled, except by annotation.)
>>
>> How about adding this at the end of Section 3.1:
>>
>>    "In several cases, such as for the 'WG Document Awaiting Reviews'
>>    state, it is highly desirable to be able to set multiple sub-states
>>    at the same time (R-013).  This is in order to avoid  
>> serialisation of
>>    reviews because the tracker doesn't support showing and indicating
>>    parallel reviews."
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>>
>> 	Henrik
>>
>>
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
proto-team@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team