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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

I mean if I can be greedy, if there’s a github_repo set in addition resources can we include that too?

spt

> On Oct 15, 2025, at 19:18, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Robert,
> 
> Looks good to me.  I like the way the end date of the last call was changed.
> 
> One suggestions, instead of just a link the datatracker, how about just some direct links to the document.  For example (copied from ID announcement emails):
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-snac-simple/
> 
> There is also an HTML version available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-snac-simple-07.html
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-snac-simple-07
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 15, 2025, at 3:03 PM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>