Re: [Tools-discuss] missing WG

Henrik Levkowetz <> Fri, 05 April 2013 12:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCB721F976A for <>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.477
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y38TnFIeOft9 for <>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9080321F9769 for <>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 05:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a01:3f0:1:0:1523:d481:1dc0:e7e1] (port=65460 by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1UO5hQ-0007yU-Na; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:24:57 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:24:56 +0200
From: Henrik Levkowetz <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----enig2RKFUCSJDXGNHDUADQCEL"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:3f0:1:0:1523:d481:1dc0:e7e1
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on
Cc: Tools Team Discussion <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] missing WG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:25:03 -0000

Hi Peter,

I just saw your note (below) to the list.  (However, it's much better to
send a note to me or to (essentially the same)
if you want to get immediate attention...)

Anyway:  The reason for this was a bug in the fairly new charter
support in the datatracker, where not all state information for the
WG in question was generated correctly when a charter was marked as
approved.  This resulted in the jcardcal WG not being mentioned in
various places; in particular it was missing in

I've now fixed the bug in the datatracker, so this should not repeat
for new WGs; I've also fixed the database for jcardcal so the scripts
on will do their thing, and create the page.

On 2013-03-26 17:57 Peter Saint-Andre said:
> The JCARDCAL WG shows up on but not on
> How in-sync is supposed to be?

You should never have to wait more than an hour to see changes.  For
some pages, maximum delay is as little as 3 minutes.

> And if is no longer canonical, what about add-on tools
> such as the issue tracker?

This was a bug; there's no intention of not keeping in
sync going forward.  Not only that; I'm working at several strategies
to improve latency substantially.

Best regards,