Re: [sipcore] Tracker Etiquette

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

James,

Thanks for your thoughts.

The correlation with documents seems very important. Based on later 
messages in this thread, I see that the "component" field doesn't show 
up in the subject line of the mail messages, which is unfortunate.

(I only briefly skimmed the features of this tool. It appears to be very 
configurable. Does somebody know if it can be configured to include the 
component name in the mail subject lines?)

	Thanks,
	Paul

James M. Polk wrote:
> 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
> 
>