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

"Emilio A. Sánchez" <> Thu, 07 April 2011 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A0B28C113 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 02:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.967
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.967 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bZqnm3Cpf3La for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 02:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7253A68F4 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 02:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so1941629wwa.13 for <>; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s15mr624066wbe.143.1302167283394; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id y29sm902334wbd.38.2011. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:08:12 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Emilio_A=2E_S=E1nchez=22?= <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Patrik_F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc:, Eliot Lear <>, Ray Pelletier <>
Subject: Re: [yaco-liaison-tool] The liaison tool: Status Update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of the Yaco / Liaison Statement Management Tool Project details <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:06:20 -0000

    Hi Patrik,

El 07/04/11 10:34, Patrik Fältström escribió:
> On 7 apr 2011, at 10.25, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> 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?
> Any individual that have a role that have edit access to certain liaisons (depending on whether the liaison is incoming, outgoing and what external organisation is involved) must be able to update the action date and responsible person (that holds the token of action).

    If you can edit a liaison then you can change its deadline date.

> I have also seen cases when for example responses of some kind of liaisons have been added without having "link to older liaison" has not been set, so that kind of "cleanup" must also be possible.

    Same here, if you can edit the liaison then you can add the 
reference to other liaison.

> For example, as liaison to Unicode Consortium from IETF, I should have such edit rights on the liaisons that have to do with Unicode Consortium (in or out).
> ITU-T liaison (Eliot) should have such edit rights to any ITU-T related liaison.
> Normally otherwise, an individual only have edit rights to either liaisons they have posted, or liaisons they are token holders of.
> Or something like that.
> The important thing is to be able to update the liaisons. And we can trust our (IETF) liaisons, so to get fine-grained access rights is not so important. The ability to get things right in the database is. Having bad data in the database -- as now -- is not working in the long(er) run.

    I suppose, as I said in my previous mail, that the problem is who 
can 'take care' (mark as done) a liaison. Right now this action can be 
done by anyone whose email is listed in the liaison. But probably I 
should add the people that can edit the liaison to the ones that can 
'take care' of it.


>     Patrik