Re: [sipcore] Tracker Etiquette

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Tue, 31 August 2010 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF453A6863 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.514
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BGAVJe-RrXCQ for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30A03A6839 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,300,1280707200"; d="scan'208";a="153846301"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2010 21:47:22 +0000
Received: from [161.44.174.142] (dhcp-161-44-174-142.cisco.com [161.44.174.142]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7VLlMJW021275; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:47:22 GMT
Message-ID: <4C7D786A.4020704@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:47:22 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
References: <4C7D5E9C.9090908@nostrum.com> <201008312037.o7VKb82b003320@sj-core-5.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201008312037.o7VKb82b003320@sj-core-5.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Tracker Etiquette
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:46:53 -0000

[as chair]

I've been ignoring the tracker till now, but it seems impossible to 
continue doing so.

ISTM we do need some group norms on this.
Especially given my lack of experience with the tool, I'm reluctant to 
impose them, at least *yet*. Instead, I'd like to see some discussion on 
how people think this should be used.

Here are a few questions that come to mind:

- can anybody create a new topic? Or should the topics be controlled
   in some way? (e.g. consensus)

- can anybody create a new ticket? Or should ticket issuance be
   controlled in some way? (e.g. consensus)

- is creating a ticket done after discussion, or in lieu of discussion?

- who is responsible for assigning ownership of a ticket?
   can the author pick anybody he wants? Or should people only be
   allowed to assign ownership to themself?  Or should there be
   ownership of topics?

- who can close a ticket? The reporter? The owner? Anybody?

I'd like to hear what people in this WG think about this. (My own first 
reaction is that it would be helpful for wg doc editors to use tracker 
for those things that need to be addressed in a document, based on 
emails from others. I'm not so sure about use beyond that, but have an 
open mind.)

Should I have created a tracker topic "Tracker Etiquette" and submitted 
tickets for each of these questions, rather than sending this mail?

	Thanks,
	Paul

James M. Polk wrote:
> At 02:57 PM 8/31/2010, Adam Roach wrote:
> 
>> [as chair]
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Amen
> 
> tracking which issues pertain to which docs is a fundamental flaw in 
> this whole process regardless of the WG or doc involved.
> 
> James
> 
> 
>> Thank you.
>>
>> /a
>> _______________________________________________
>> sipcore mailing list
>> sipcore@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>