[Tools-discuss] Ballot position change email subject (was Re: Tim Polk's No Objection on draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10: (with COMMENT))

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

I had my fingers in this last, and I thought about the layout of the subject line quite a bit
before laying it out this way.

The short answer is that you can't win - sometimes the emphasis needs to be on whether there's
a comment, sometimes the most important piece of information is that the position has changed.
The best we can do is get all the information on the line to facilitate searches.

This layout will be the most useful to me in forming searches later. That said,
I don't care what that order the information comes in as long as its all there. 
I do care that we pick a way and leave it alone for awhile so that good search tools can actually
be built.

With that in mind, do you feel strongly enough about this to argue for changing it?

RjS


On Dec 8, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Folks, this subject line looks like a bug to me. 
> 
> The email thread will be about the COMMENT, not about the No Objection
> 
> Cheers
> Adrian
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tim
>> Polk
>> Sent: 08 December 2010 22:09
>> To: The IESG
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Tim Polk's No Objection on draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10:
>> (with COMMENT)
>> 
>> Tim Polk has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10: No Objection
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> In section 3.1, the document state withdrawn is listed but is not defined and no
>> reference is given.  Text was added that indicated this is self-explanatory, but I
>> must be dense since I still don't know what it means,
>> 
>> I do not want to delay things further, though, and see no harm in moving forward
>> with this text.
>