Re: [yaco-liaison-tool] The liaison tool: Status Update

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

On 5/23/11 8:45 AM, "Emilio A. Sánchez" wrote:
> El 18/05/11 20:29, Stephanie McCammon escribió:
>>
>>
>> Hi Emilio,
>
>    Hi Stephanie
>
>> I'm trying to add an outgoing liaison however I'm running into an issue
>> with the drop down menu in the 'From' section. The problem I'm having is
>> with the drop down for the person that it's from. Do you know how these
>> drop down menus are populated and where I can go to add someone? I've
>> been digging around in the Liaisons Administration area but can't find a
>> way to do it.
>
>    When you try to add an outgoing liaison as secretariat you can
> select one user in the from field from all the users allowed to send
> outgoing liaisons on behalf of the entity you have selected in the
> from field.
>
>    The users allowed to send liaisons on behalf of one IETF entities are:
>
>    * On behalf of any entity: Any SDO manager.

I certainly don't see this behavior.
>
>    * On behalf of the IETF/IESG: The IETF/IESG chair.
>
>    * On behalf of the IAB: The IAB chair and the IAB Executive director.
>
>    * On behalf of an Area: The area directors.
>
>    * On behalf of an IETF WG: The WG chairs.
>
>    So you can add people to the list in the following ways:
>
>    * Adding a new SDO manager in the django admin interface.
>
>    * Changing the IETF/IESG/IAB chair, probably you don't want to do
> this :)
>
>    * Adding a new Area director or a new WG Chair. Of course only if
> he or she is an are Area director or a WG Chair.
>
>    If the person you want to add to the list already meets any of
> these conditions and is not on the list then maybe there is some bug
> in the tool.
>
>    Best,
>
>
>
>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>>
>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Emilio,
>>>
>>> On 2011-05-11 18:39 "Emilio A. Sánchez" said:
>>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that Henrik have to merge the changes and update the
>>>> production server. Then you will able to use the new features.
>>>
>>> I believe I've done so, but can't see the submission date field when
>>> I look at a liaison edit field with secretariat permissions.
>>>
>>> Emilio, can you point me to a page on the beta server where I can see
>>> how this should look, so I can try to find out what's happening here?
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Henrik
>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> El 11/05/11 17:31, Stephanie McCammon escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Emilio,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for doing this, however I don't see the editable field for
>>>>> submission date in the tool. Could you please look into why this
>>>>> field
>>>>> isn't visible?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 27, 2011, at 4:50 AM, Emilio A. Sánchez wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have done the changes needed to add the new field. See
>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/653
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the user can enter the submission date when sending a new
>>>>>> liaison
>>>>>> (or when editing an existing one).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the date enter is more than 30 days different than now a warning
>>>>>> will be displayed when submitting the form.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> El 25/04/11 21:58, Russ Housley escribió:
>>>>>>> You might want to pop up a warning if the date is seriously
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> than now, just to confirm that the person means to use the
>>>>>>> provided date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Russ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Emilio A. Sánchez wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems that anyone allowed to send liaisons (incoming or
>>>>>>>> outgoing)
>>>>>>>> may need to change the submission date.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, I think the best option is to add a submission date field into
>>>>>>>> the form (prepopulated with the current date but editable).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In that case anyone allowed to send liaisons will be able to
>>>>>>>> falsify
>>>>>>>> the submission date. If that's right I can do the appropriate
>>>>>>>> changes in the code to add this field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> El 21/04/11 21:30, Russ Housley escribió:
>>>>>>>>> Yes there should be an option -- for two reasons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (1) Incoming Liaison Statements - sometimes other SDOs send
>>>>>>>>> them to
>>>>>>>>> Chairs or ADs, which then get forwarded at some later point for
>>>>>>>>> posting.
>>>>>>>>> They should reflect the date that they were originally received.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (2) Outgoing Liaison Statements - again, mistakes happen. If the
>>>>>>>>> tool is
>>>>>>>>> not used to send it in the first place, when it is posted it
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> reflect the date it was actually sent to the recipient SDO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Russ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 21, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Alexa Morris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Adrian:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When you post a liaison, it will show the date it was posted --
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> is no option (at least for us) to change the date to make it
>>>>>>>>>> show the
>>>>>>>>>> original submission date.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Henrik, Emilio:
>>>>>>>>>> is there an option -- or should there be -- to update the date
>>>>>>>>>> so that
>>>>>>>>>> it reflects the actual submission date and not the (now very
>>>>>>>>>> delayed)
>>>>>>>>>> date that it will be posted? There is another liaison in the
>>>>>>>>>> queue
>>>>>>>>>> that Stephanie could not post, but now can, that will be
>>>>>>>>>> similarly
>>>>>>>>>> impacted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And to Adrian's other question, when the Secretariat posts a
>>>>>>>>>> liaison,
>>>>>>>>>> we have the option to "post only" or "post and send". Does a
>>>>>>>>>> regular
>>>>>>>>>> liaison manager have the ability to make such a distinction as
>>>>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>>>> It sounds as if Adrian might want to avoid a duplicate
>>>>>>>>>> announcement
>>>>>>>>>> since he already copied a bunch of folks on his initial
>>>>>>>>>> attempt at
>>>>>>>>>> posting the liaison.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Alexa
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 15, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Stephanie,
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know whether if *I* post it, it will show all the dates
>>>>>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>>>>>> and not send another copy?
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no really great urgency to getting a copy of the LS
>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>> tracker, but I would like to avoid any snafus with what is
>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately
>>>>>>>>>>> recorded and what might get sent.
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>> PS - Tanks to all for working on the tool!
>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*Stephanie McCammon [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*15 April 2011 21:24
>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*Emilio A. Sánchez
>>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:*Henrik Levkowetz; Patrik Fältström; Alexa Morris; Russ
>>>>>>>>>>> Housley;
>>>>>>>>>>> Eliot Lear; Ray Pelletier; Barney
>>>>>>>>>>> Glen;[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>;[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: The liaison tool: Status Update
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone
>>>>>>>>>>> Henrik was able to do the merge, however the tool is still not
>>>>>>>>>>> functioning properly. It still tells me that I am not allowed
>>>>>>>>>>> to send
>>>>>>>>>>> a liaison to the ITU-T SG 15. Please look into this as soon
>>>>>>>>>>> as you
>>>>>>>>>>> have a chance.
>>>>>>>>>>> Adrian,
>>>>>>>>>>> The new liaison tool will not let me post the response liaison
>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>> ITU-T SG 15 regarding COM15-LS293-E, and while we are
>>>>>>>>>>> working this
>>>>>>>>>>> out you may want to try posting it for yourself. The CC field
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> now be editable for you. Please let me know if you have any
>>>>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 2011, at 8:28 AM, Emilio A. Sánchez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The last fix is applied in a repository branch, it needs to be
>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>> into trunk and then update the code of the production server.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Henrik, could you do the merge?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> El 12/04/11 17:24, Stephanie McCammon escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Emilio,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have just tried to post the liaison on behalf of Adrian
>>>>>>>>>>> Farrel
>>>>>>>>>>> and it
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> still says that I am not allowed to send it and reverts the
>>>>>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>>>>> back to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> saying that it is from me. Could you please look into this
>>>>>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2011, at 2:33 AM, Emilio A. Sánchez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have fixed this issue in
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/648
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now the tool takes into account which user are you
>>>>>>>>>>> imporsonating in
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> order to check if he/she is allowed to send a liaison to an
>>>>>>>>>>> specific SDO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> El 08/04/11 19:58, Stephanie McCammon escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just tried to post an outgoing liaison and received an
>>>>>>>>>>> error that said
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was not allowed to send an outgoing liaison to ITU-T
>>>>>>>>>>> SG15. I was
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> attempting to post it on behalf of Adrian Farrel who is
>>>>>>>>>>> listed as the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> liaison manager for ITU-T SG 15. Can this be fixed?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-04-07 11:37 "Emilio A. Sánchez" said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right now the field person of the LiaisonDetail
>>>>>>>>>>> model stores the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PersonOrOrgInfo of the user that creates the
>>>>>>>>>>> liaison. The real one
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so if
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the secretariat is sending a liaisons the person
>>>>>>>>>>> field has the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> secretariat user person.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But this info is not used to grant any privilege
>>>>>>>>>>> over the liaisons.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ah. So that field could more properly have been
>>>>>>>>>>> called 'creator'. Ok.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Henrik
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> El 07/04/11 11:16, Henrik Levkowetz escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Emilio,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure you, Patrik and myself are
>>>>>>>>>>> talking about the same thing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> here. See more below.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-04-07 10:54 "Emilio A. Sánchez" said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> El 07/04/11 10:25, Henrik Levkowetz escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Emilio,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-04-06 16:03 "Emilio A.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sánchez" said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what data
>>>>>>>>>>> want's to edit Patrik when he say
>>>>>>>>>>> 'who
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> holds the action item'. If he
>>>>>>>>>>> refers to the person who can 'take
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> care'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of a liaison, this person is
>>>>>>>>>>> selected automatically.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But if the SDO Liaison Manager is
>>>>>>>>>>> changing, then liaisons which
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> need to be taken care of will need to
>>>>>>>>>>> be updated, no?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm revising the code. The persons who
>>>>>>>>>>> are allowed to 'take care' of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a liaison are:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * The secretariat (always)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * Any person whose email is listed under
>>>>>>>>>>> 'cc', 'reply_to', 'poc',
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'response_contact', 'technical_contact'
>>>>>>>>>>> and the submitter. Of course
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> only if this person has an user in the
>>>>>>>>>>> datatracker.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One option is edit one of this field (but
>>>>>>>>>>> this is so ugly).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that the best option is allow to
>>>>>>>>>>> the 'take care' a if the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> current user is allowed to edit the
>>>>>>>>>>> liaison (This check is done
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> fly and checks if the user is currently
>>>>>>>>>>> an sdo manager of the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> liaison).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's an entry in the LiaisonDetails class
>>>>>>>>>>> which is 'person'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This would be the person who holds the token
>>>>>>>>>>> to handle a liaison,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> maybe? If so, I think that's the entry Patrik
>>>>>>>>>>> would like to update.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But if this entry isn't used anywhere, then
>>>>>>>>>>> we need to figure out
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the distinction between the set of people who
>>>>>>>>>>> 'can take care of' a
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> liaison, and the person who has the token.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Henrik
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie McCammon
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IETF Registrar
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 48377 Fremont Blvd, Ste. 117
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fremont, CA 94538
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> T: +1.510.492.4081
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> F: +1.510.492.4001
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Association Management Solutions (AMS)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Forum Management, Meeting, and Event Planning
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> www.amsl.com<http://www.amsl.com/><http://www.amsl.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.amsl.com/>> <http://www.amsl.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie McCammon
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IETF Registrar
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 48377 Fremont Blvd, Ste. 117
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fremont, CA 94538
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> T: +1.510.492.4081
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> F: +1.510.492.4001
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Association Management Solutions (AMS)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Forum Management, Meeting, and Event Planning
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> www.amsl.com<http://www.amsl.com/><http://www.amsl.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie McCammon
>>>>>>>>>>> IETF Registrar
>>>>>>>>>>> 48377 Fremont Blvd, Ste. 117
>>>>>>>>>>> Fremont, CA 94538
>>>>>>>>>>> T: +1.510.492.4081
>>>>>>>>>>> F: +1.510.492.4001
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Association Management Solutions (AMS)
>>>>>>>>>>> Forum Management, Meeting, and Event Planning
>>>>>>>>>>> www.amsl.com<http://www.amsl.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>>>>>> Alexa Morris / Executive Director / IETF
>>>>>>>>>> 48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA 94538
>>>>>>>>>> Phone: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
>>>>>>>>>> Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS)
>>>>>>>>>> Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning
>>>>>>>>>> www.amsl.com<http://www.amsl.com> <http://www.amsl.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie McCammon
>>>>> IETF Registrar
>>>>> 48377 Fremont Blvd, Ste. 117
>>>>> Fremont, CA 94538
>>>>> T: +1.510.492.4081
>>>>> F: +1.510.492.4001
>>>>>
>>>>> Association Management Solutions (AMS)
>>>>> Forum Management, Meeting, and Event Planning
>>>>> www.amsl.com <http://www.amsl.com> <http://www.amsl.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Stephanie McCammon
>> IETF Registrar
>> 48377 Fremont Blvd, Ste. 117
>> Fremont, CA 94538
>> T: +1.510.492.4081
>> F: +1.510.492.4001
>>
>> Association Management Solutions (AMS)
>> Forum Management, Meeting, and Event Planning
>> www.amsl.com <http://www.amsl.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>
>