Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] IESG strategic retreat

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Russ:

Hi!

We really haven’t had any movement on this item.  The conversation that
triggered the AI was about the possibility of clearly tracking who has the
ball during WG processing…similar to what we have now for the IESG
(“Revised ID Needed”, “AD Followup”, etc.).

There are 5 other ADs who showed interest in this topic…. Personally, I
think that we should first have a clear understanding of what actions we
want to track and who should/may be triggering them before we start
thinking about changes to the datatracker (or anything else).

Again, we haven’t started working on this yet.  Roman is one of the
interested ADs — I’m sure he’ll keep the rest of the team in the loop…but
we might also come back later (when the idea/purpose is clearer) to consult
with the team as needed; and definitely before anything is finalized.

Thanks!!

Alvaro.

On October 28, 2019 at 2:12:16 PM, Alissa Cooper ([e-mail]) wrote:

Hi Russ,

Thanks. Alvaro took the action at the retreat to lead further discussions
about this, so he’s the person to chat with about the status of those
discussions.

Best,
Alissa


> On Oct 28, 2019, at 10:19 AM <http://airmail.calendar/2019-10-28 10:19:00
EDT>, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Alissa:
>
> The Datatracker had played a huge role in increasing transparency. I am
glad to hear that the IESG wants more transparency, but I cannot figure out
from the blog post what you really have in mind. Can we start a discussion
on the tools-development list to better understand you desires?
>
> Russ
>