Re: [sipcore] Tracker Etiquette

["Elwell, John" <[e-mail]>]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: 01 September 2010 01:47
> To: Paul Kyzivat; James M. Polk
> Cc: SIPCORE
> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Tracker Etiquette
> 
> 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.
[JRE] MARTINI has used tickets, fairly successfully I think. We are starting to use them in SIPREC, but we have limited experience to date. In both groups, anyone can generate a ticket (or reopen a closed one), which does lead to a free-for-all Potentially it could be a problem, so if we constrain it I would like at least the chairs, not just the editor, to have the ability to open a ticket (assigned to the editor).

John

> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>