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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for reading and commenting.  More inline:

on 2007-01-10 02:09 Dan Wing said the following:
> I applaud this effort - thank you very much.
> 
> * In several working groups, I have noticed an increased use of named
> technical reviewers.  It might be useful to have a place for those people to
> be listed, and also to get email notification of revisions of documents they
> are reviewing (similar to how chairs and the WG itself is informed of new
> revisions).  Some of these reviewers don't necessarily subscribe to the WG
> mailing list itself (cross-area review, for example).

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.

> * 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-tracker-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.

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.
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.

> 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?  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?


	Henrik