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

A couple of comments:

   *  Candidate WG Document
      This document is under consideration for becoming a working group
      document.

      Possible next states: "Active WG Document", "I-D Exists", "Dead"

"I-D Exists" is only a synthesized state.  There are two databases;
the "I-D Database" and the "I-D Tracker database" (as you can see from
the csv data dumps); a document is in "I-D Exists" iff it is
in the I-D Database and not in the I-D Tracker database.

We've got a pending enhancement request to change this, but for now
this particular transition probably couldn't happen.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the change in the way the substate
field works.  The IESG tracker's substate set was chosen to apply
in nearly any state, and to at least partially make it clear who
was responsible for the next step.  I've got 2 main concerns:
1. Changing the way substates work may be a bigger implementation
   load - both backend work associating what substates are associated
   with what primary states, and frontend UI work to enable the
   right selections (e.g., one of the design goals of the tracker is
   to still function acceptably without javascript; I don't think
   you can easily implement "change to the right set of substates"
   without javascript.)
2. The set of substates seems fairly arbitrary, and doesn't necessarily
   actually convey more information.  I'd like to suggest instead
   that you consider if the "Note" field could suffice.

I think there's a missing transition from "Active WG Document" to
"In WG Last Call" - if the document is under active discussion
in the WG, then there's not necessarily a need for a pause at
"Awaiting Reviews".  Of course, since the states are all selectable
directly, this is just a convenience.

  Bill

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