Re: I-D tracker automatic reminders

[David Meyer <[e-mail]>]

	Pekka,

>> I raised this issue in IETF59 WG chairs' training, but I think it 
>> might be useful to discuss it with a wider audience as well.
>> 
>> I think it would be useful for I-D tracker to send "reminders" of open
>> issues to the responsible person(s) after a document stays too long in
>> a state, when by the process, it should have moved into a new state.
>> (What could constitute "too long" varies by the state, but could be
>> 1-4 weeks for example.)
>> 
>> For example, if a document stays too long in states:
>>  - AD evaluation or Expert Review, remind the AD
>>  - Publication Requested, remind the AD
>>  - Last Call Requested, remind the secretariat
>>  - In Last Call, after the last call has long since expired, remind 
>> the AD and WG chairs
>>  - Waiting for AD go-ahead, remind the AD
>>  - IESG evaluation, remind the AD
>>  - Defer, remind the secretariat [[ this should not be possible ]]
>>  - DNP - Waiting for AD note, remind the AD
>>  - DNP - Announcemnt to be sent, remind the secretariat
>>  - Approved - "", remind the secretariat
>>  - Different AD -followup, revised ID needed etc. states -- remind AD, 
>>    and WG chairs
>> 
>> Obviously, in most cases, "remind the AD" really means "remind the AD
>> to remind other people to hurry up" -- but in these cases, the AD may
>> be the only responsible person visible to the tracker, so there really
>> isn't anyone else to remind here :)
>> 
>> It might be nice to be able to track the RFC-editor process (esp. if
>> IANA causes blockage, or some normative refs cause trouble), but one
>> might argue that that's beyond the scope of I-D tracker even if
>> important.
>> 
>> Actually, as I think more information can't hurt, all of these
>> reminders could be sent to some kind of mail alias, including at least
>> the AD and WG chairs.
>> 
>> Other thoughts?  Is too many "reminders" or messages about document
>> progress (or lack thereof) too bothersome?
>> 
>> Personally, I'd find these important as more often than not, someone 
>> (whether AD, WG chair, document editor, ....) forgets to pursue 
>> something and the ball gets dropped until someone reminds that the 
>> document should be moving forward.. :-)

	Interestingly, we (the proto-team) are looking at various
	pilot projects that are designed to address parts of what
	you describe above. One of these pilot projects has as
	its objective to allow the WG chair to do much of what is
	being call "shepherding" (shepherding covers much of what
	you describe above; see draft-ietf-proto-shepherding-00.txt). 

	Some of our initial ideas for a pilot project that seeks
	to most closely address your issues is documented in 
	draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-discuss-pilot-00.txt.

	As always, your comments greatly appreciated.

	Dave