Re: [sipcore] Tracker Etiquette

I believe Adam's statements were regarding Editorial comments in particular, not technical issues. (right?)

I had assumed the author would want those in the tracker too, just so they could track them instead of searching mailing lists.  But I was adding "Editorial:" to the beginning of their subjects to differentiate them. (someone should get the tracker tools folks to create a ticket type field to capture this I guess)  But yeah I suppose we should aggregate our Editorial entries into one ticket as much as possible. (my bad)

-hadriel

On Aug 31, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore