RE: WG chair use of the ID-tracker: Proposed tool addition

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

...
> The intention is to handle reviewer notification with a different new
> tool, which actually is a general notification engine.  There's also
> a reviewer support tool in the works, which may be the most 
> appropriate place to register reviewers.

Great.  Thanks.


> > * Of the defined working group states, what is the intended
> >   purpose of the "Not a WG Document" state?  Is this intended for
> >   (1) individual documents which might be adopted by the working
> >   group, or (2) working group documents that have been abandoned
> >   by the working group (that is, more abandoned than the 'parked'
> >   state), or (3) is this the default state for all draft-*
> >   documents?
> 
> The intention is (3).  I've added some more explanatory text to this
> state in the source on my disk. (There's a preview here, too:
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/proto/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-t
> racker-ext/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-02.b.txt)
> 
> > If (1), I suggest calling this state 'Potential WG document' or
> > 'Chair is Watching' (similar to the existing IESG "AD is
> > watching" state), or 'Not Yet a WG Document', or 'Impending
> > WG Document'; if (2), I suggest 'Abandoned';
> > if (3), I suggest 'Individual Document' for draft-LASTNAME-*, and
> > I suggest creating 'IAB document' for draft-iab-*, 'IRTF'
> > for draft-irtf-*, 'IESG', 'ITU', etc.
> 
> For (1), do people think there's a need for such a state?  If 
> so, I'll add it to the spec.

On further evaluation, I think this could be done well enough
with the existing "Candidate WG Document" state.

> The same goes for (2) - do people think there's a need for 
> such a state?
> 
> For (3), there's a separate draft which will describe IAB and 
> IRTF states.

Ok.

> I'd like to keep those separate, rather than create state dependencies
> between them and the WG document states.  The WG document state should
> only be relevant for documents being handled (or considered) by a WG;
> others should simply be "Not a WG Document", and possibly 
> have some other state independently of the WG document state. 
> I'll add some explanatory text about this, too.

That makes sense, thanks.

> > In any event, it would be useful if there was a way for a chair to
> > indicate that an individual submission is interesting to the
> > working group, sometime prior to it being adopted by the WG.  For
> > example, perhaps the document doesn't fit in the WG's charter yet,
> > or a milestone needs to be added.  But I suppose that state is
> > pretty short-lived.  Anyway, I'll throw the idea out there and see
> > what y'all think about it.
> 
> This is referring to (1) above, right? 

Yes.  Perhaps it can be done well enough with the existing 
"Candidate WG Document" state, though.  I withdraw my previous
suggestion for a "Chair is Watching" state.

> Let's hear what people think.
> 
> > * It might be useful to show anticipated WGLC dates or 
> > dependencies, perhaps freeform in the WG state annotation.  
> > See, for example,
> >   http://www.employees.org/behave/document-status.html
> 
> Could this be handled by the annotation "Other - see Comment 
> Log", or do you see a clear need for an explicit annotation 
> tag for this?

To keep this a simple state (instead of a date field), how 
about an additional state of "WGLC anticipated", indicating
this document appears ready for WGLC.  This could be the state
it sits in while technical reviewers are reviewing, for example,
but before the onslaught of a WGLC.  (Although oftentimes the
WGLC and technical reviews happen in parallel.)

In my working group, I am holding off a couple of documents
from WGLC because we have higher priority documents that
we want to complete some cross-WG reviews.  But they are
otherwise "ready" for WGLC, so if someone wanted to review
those mature documents, they would know they're almost-good-
enough-to-WGLC.

-d