Re: [sipcore] Tracker Etiquette

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

This is all good. One comment below.

Adam Roach wrote:
> 
> [as chair]
> 
> The issue tracker has been introduced without much in the way of 
> guidelines. I think that, used correctly, it can be very useful for 
> making sure specific issues don't get lost in the noise. It saves 
> authors the work of exhaustively trawling the mailing list to make 
> certain everything has been addressed.
> 
> However.
> 
> If we generate so many tickets that document authors spend more time 
> closing tickets than actually fixing the document, then the tracker 
> becomes a liability instead of an asset.
> 
> For right now, I'd like us to adjust how we deal with nits and editorial 
> comments. For the most part, these should be sent to the list or 
> directly to the author to be addressed (i.e., no need to open a ticket). 
> Tracking these isn't important or even all that useful; if we miss one, 
> then the paid RFC editor staff whose job it is to address these kinds of 
> errors will probably catch it.
> 
> Larger or more structural issues can be entered into the tracker -- but 
> please don't enter each such editorial comment into a new ticket. Gather 
> all of your non-technical comments together, and put them in a single 
> ticket.
> 
> Finally, it would be helpful to document authors if you included 
> something in the ticket name that indicated which document the tracker 
> issue is on. It doesn't have to be a whole document name; something like 
> "4244bis" for the history-info draft would be sufficient.

I find that the tool for entering tickets provides a drop down listing 
(I guess) topics that have already been used, so its easy to reuse an 
existing topic. ISTM that we should be conservative in the number of 
topics used. One per document ought to be enough in most cases.

	Thanks,
	Paul