[Tools-discuss] Those Working Group Last Call emails

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 28 October 2025 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5028C7DB2B8E; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 15:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=olddog.co.uk
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gHrSVWV0GITk; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 15:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70E017DB2B00; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 15:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 59SMLp80006236; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 22:21:51 GMT
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437154604B; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 22:21:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378CA4603D; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 22:21:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 22:21:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([185.69.145.35]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 59SMLogV005812 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Oct 2025 22:21:50 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: wgchairs@ietf.org, 'Tools Team Discussion' <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 22:21:48 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <00c301dc4859$410c3300$c3249900$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdxIWBcdAksSMYjZTIucElFyqQ/KTA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 185.69.145.35
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=olddog.co.uk; h=reply-to :from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=20221128; bh=W1cDS88h2u8k1wn6BUS7a 5Hb4eSak1qwhYLufDwK3Lw=; b=JkEp60VZ9sfaTbZGZ9XMWJ7wI5cnQ8vI7+5tn LTqmfv6mh0Lpi5nO3RYYpEcP826HbOItfzqsLWg3AXXfaYjk8/7e0WHizjleDlRU VK8RPcDkJEdUM2Gi5mwKBCl5IAEMsSpHXGQZf6eCzKyYxi7+DzdNC1Ya4mJ3b/e5 HPpnAcN2jTzZciR7uYRWPSbpIAu507ahutsh5HUqjwHHFed4Layinc0C7hEOySCr XDKCXnL4vtlPsBSqrJcukQ8HsFA+7rsxT831ksXKa5eqIofRoe+f3NFnLWSJzT8x h/548cKV3f7OftC8GkmnCvvZoZypbIvw9PLU9gschvPAfuDFQ==
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1006-29464.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No--3.034-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--3.034-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1006-29464.005
X-TMASE-Result: 10--3.034400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: RovB8tgFo0lQE6ibPblV0TiEPRj9j9rvCIFiJP1XZ1Ku9yzHHu0ZiWJj g9GXn3itR/mpF+jfPExXP9BEUf+SB1zhU0/oppo2SHCU59h5KrHif+maZ5dQ52ijL9AZgQpMSzC B6PyBOYHQ2jWaSvYDWMDW16CRyJCwVXdhxvY9T3BtN2GsBybzwo9CLqm+oB0byPRAwD/3abayhy zhSQtL0pMIqoXPyR8NgF/gZnNr7fDyIohFuDqYop4CIKY/Hg3AtOt1ofVlaoJ1wPk/GHGZA01j0 vwmQbGYtfAeP8CayYYrN8z0HohG3voLR4+zsDTtyMdyHKes7ltK59TZq/ToMhtTLSNQ1LYCCe9l /8fHsk9m8mvq8ZHnbA==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Message-ID-Hash: YUA33IQ7IU53ZJVXIE44YFDKPJBSKQ3I
X-Message-ID-Hash: YUA33IQ7IU53ZJVXIE44YFDKPJBSKQ3I
X-MailFrom: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tools-discuss.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: [Tools-discuss] Those Working Group Last Call emails
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/Zd05w52dtXXFcPHckRrv-HYkOs8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tools-discuss-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tools-discuss-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tools-discuss-leave@ietf.org>

Well, I mainly ignored the sniffles around this topic until I just did my
first WGLC since the change was made.

Now, I issued the last call to the working group by email first thing this
morning (my time), but I didn't get to update the Datatracker until just
now.

And I find the Datatracker automagically sends out a duplicate (and
therefore false) email.
Aware that there was the possibility that an email would be sent, I looked
for the check box to opt in/out, but there wasn't one.

Now, as far as I can see, this tooling change (made with good intentions)
has taken away my ability to run a working group with subtlety. For example,
I can't stop the message going out, and I can't change what it says. I can't
control the end date and time of the last call. I can't give advice to the
WG in the last call message. In short, this is bad!

I suggest:
1. Back out this change with immediate effect until the spec of the function
can be agreed by the people that use it.
2. Spec the function to:
  a. warn the chair that the message will be sent
  b. give the option to not send the message
  c. show the message txt and allow it to be edited

It may be melodramatic, but this is an absolutely frustrating annoyance, and
just makes life really unhappy.

Thanks,
Adrian