Re: [sipcore] Tracker Etiquette

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

ISTM that the first order of business wrt Tickets is to correlate 
them to a particular document. Perhaps this is a pull down tab with 
minimal ids for each WG item we have (e.g., 'hi' for history-info, 
and 'loc' for Location Conveyance). The note to the list will already 
say it's [sipcore], so this second level of identification allows doc 
editors to quickly know whether a ticket (in the subject line of the 
note to the list) is for 'their' doc or not.

I think the chairs ought to assign what they think is best for a doc 
identifier.

BTW - Geopriv and ECRIT use tickets, but not the doc identifiers, and 
as an author of more than one ID within each group, it's a real bitch 
(sorry ladies) to track them in my mail app.

Also, personally I don't like tickets being generated about one of my 
docs without any discussion - mostly because I feel kinda blindsided 
by having to account for another topic without having a chance to 
explain whether or not I believe that ticket's topic is already 
covered (or not). In other words, I personally don't have an issue 
with bonafide open issues - whether technical or editorial - but I'd 
like the opportunity to address the topic before it becomes a ticket.

I believe all the rest of Paul's points fall under these above, and 
can be worked out.

Maybe that's just how I think...

comments?

James

At 04:47 PM 8/31/2010, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>[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
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>_______________________________________________
>>sipcore mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore