Re: [sipcore] Tracker Etiquette

["Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[e-mail]>]

I've gotten around to consolidating some (hopefully all) of the tracker items that seem to me to be "minor" wording issues.  Not all of these are nits, strictly speaking, as most of them require content knowledge to handle correctly, but I think that they do not have "interesting" or "controversial" technical content.

The new tracker item is #43 (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sipcore/trac/ticket/43).  It incorporates items #30, #33, #31, #36, #39, #17, #26, and #22.  Fortunately Trac does have a "resolve as duplicate" status, so I've closed the old items.

Dale
________________________________________
From: Mary Barnes [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:51 AM
To: Paul Kyzivat
Cc: Worley, Dale R (Dale); SIPCORE
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Tracker Etiquette

It's not the closing of the ticket in and of itself that's difficult.
I think the tool is an excellent way to track technical issues, so we
don't have to worry about losing email threads. However, it's
absolutely not necessary to use something like this to track editorial
nits, other than perhaps having a placeholder ticket for capturing
them all there.  And by editorial nits, I'm talking about grammatical
things, missing spaces, misplaced quotes, etc. Those don't even need
to go to the ML and can go directly to the author IMHO.  When a single
ticket is opened for every single gramnar nit, then far more time is
spent by the author in just opening each ticket individually and later
closing than it takes to make the edit.  In the end, some of these
nits might end up getting changed by the RFC editor in the end anyways
(in particular grammar and punctuation related).

Another problem with the current system is that you can't tell from
the email header if it's important  (aside from the fact that you
don't even know what document it relates to). There is a way to list
all the tickets and they are color coded based on impact (i.e., major
versus minor), but when you have one ticket per editorial nit, you
still have to sift through all of them.

>From what I've seen, the tool is not so sophisticated that you can
mark things as duplicate, etc. Thinking that opening a ticket is cheap
as compared to other activities involved with editing the drafts isn't
an accurate assessment. There is some overhead, but certainly not
unreasonable for the value we get in being able to track the technical
issues, but it's expensive IMHO to use for editorial comments.

Mary.
___________________________________