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

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

It would be a mistake to think that I "feel strongly enough" about anything to
spend time arguing about it. (Maybe not something to say during the NomCom
period!)

I see your motivation here and understand it.
The only thing I can think to add to your considerations is:
Is it the final state ("no objection") that is interesting, or is it the change
from the previous state ("Discuss cleared")?

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Robert Sparks
> Sent: 10 December 2010 03:30
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: 'Tim Polk'; 'The IESG'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Ballot position change email subject (was Re: Tim Polk's No Objection
on
> draft-ietf-proto-wgdocument-states-10: (with COMMENT))
> 
> 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.
> >