Re: [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]>]

On Dec 10, 2010, at 2:50 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> 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")?

Well, it's the current state, not necessarily the final state.

Not all No Objection states come after DISCUSS states. The initial position is often _very_ interesting.

Adding the old state to the Subject line (if there was an old state) would complicate searches.

> 
> 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.
>>> 
>