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

on 2006-05-15 20:51 Lisa Dusseault said the following:
> On May 14, 2006, at 7:49 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>
>> 3.2. Notifications	
>>
>>    Under the assumption that the tracker already has the ability to  
>> send	
>>    email notifications when certain state transitions occur, the  
>> tracker	
>>    should be able to send out notification to one or more email	
>>    addresses when one of the followings states or sub-states are	
>>    entered(R-012):	
>>
>>    * Awaiting MIB Doctor Review	
>>
>>    * Awaiting Cross-Area Review
>>
> 
> It seems that there are other kinds of expert review besides MIB  
> doctor.  You could consider the security review to be an expert  
> review although naturally that can also be cross-area review.  The  
> MIME Types list does some kind of expert review which could be  
> handled the same way as MIB doctors. And it's interesting to consider  
> expert review for i18n issues.  Should this be simply "Awaiting  
> outside review" or, if we want to preserve the difference, "Awaiting  
> expert review" and "Awaiting cross-area review"?  If we preserve the  
> difference, what if both kinds of review happen simultaneously?

Yees, I've already been pondering how to capture the possibility of
more than one review being pending at the same time.  Either we can
reduce the state to something very general, or we can consider ways
to either have multiple instances of a sub-state, or having a sub-
state with an annotation filed.

Unfortunately, both of these are bound to result in larger extensions
to the tracker's capabilities than what was envisioned for this
round...

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 do have an action item from the retreat to work more on the early- 
> review problem, so my questions here are somewhat influenced by  
> thinking how that might work.    (And by the way Allison, Aaron,  
> Henrik and proto-team, I welcome input from all quarters on that.)

Noted.  You should know (you probably do, but I mention it anyway)
that Tero Kivinen has started working on a support tool for review
groups.

Regards,

	Henrik

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