Re: Possible modification to issuing Working Group Last Calls from the datatracker

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

Based on the feedback so far I've modified the workflow to make it more 
clear that the issue wg lc action is different from the earlier "set 
this state directly" action.

I've also added preview/edit of the call for adoption message to the 
branch, which involved adding interstitial views in two workflows 
("manage adoption", and "set stream state"). These interstitial views 
should only appear if you are a chair of some IETF WG that might adopt a 
document, otherwise, the views should behave the way they have to date.

I have _not_ yet changed the text either of the messages default to. 
When the discussion of that settles to a point the IESG is happy, it can 
be changed in a separate PR.

Please return to https://dt-issuewglc.dev.ietf.org and exercise the 
issue-wg-lc and issue-call-for-adoption workflows.

I'm particularly interested in feedback from RG chairs (both those that 
are also WG chairs, and those that are not chairs of WGs) to make sure 
the changes haven't made the workflows harder/different from their 
perspective.

RjS

On 9/26/25 11:11 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> The recent change to the datatracker to send email as a side effect of 
> putting a document in working group last call (or call for adoption 
> issued) surprised several chairs, and requests have been made to make 
> it obvious that mail is about to be sent, and allow that mail to be 
> edited before sending. See 
> https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/issues/9439
>
> I have a proposal for a change to the workflow to allow this. It's 
> currently running at:
>
> https://dt-issuewglc.dev.ietf.org
>
> That's a development instance - remember that your passwords there are 
> all literally "password", and that anything you do there won't 
> _actually_ send any email or make any change at all to the production 
> datatracker database.
>
> Please experiment with the workflow for issuing wglc for documents in 
> your WGs - start with the edit button next to stream state - the rest 
> is hopefully self explanatory.
>
> If this approach resonates well, I'll do the same thing to issuing 
> call for adoption.
>
> (The proposed code changes are at 
> https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/pull/9616)
>
> RjS
>
>