Re: [yaco-wgchair-tracker] Testdrive comments and concerns on the "Manage Workflow" tab

["Emilio A. Sánchez" <[e-mail]>]

    Hi,

El 30/03/11 14:38, Ed Juskevicius escribió:
> Hello.  I have several comments and suggestions about the current Beta
> code for the Datatracker Extensions for WG Chairs, after seeing the
> demonstration of the tool during the WG Chairs lunch in Prague today.
> Comments / Suggestions on the "Manage Workflow" tab:
> (for example at:
> http://beta.wgchairs.yaco.es/wg/alto/management/workflows/ )
>
>    1. It is a good idea to list all of the possible states (as defined
>       in RFC 6174) for documents related to IETF WGs.  I like this.
>    2. The above being said, not everyone will memorize the definitions
>       of each of the different states (as described in RFC6174)
>           * I suggest this page be modified to provide definitions of
>             each of the WG document states, or easy access to the state
>             definitions BEFORE allowing the Chairs to say they don't
>             want to use some of these states in their WGs.

    Fine, I'll add the definitions from RFC6174

>    3.   Next point:  Two of the states (viz. "WG Document" and
>       "Submitted to IESG for Publication") appear on the list of
>       possible states (which is good), however WG Chairs should not be
>       allowed to decide these two states will not be used in their WGs.

    That makes sense.

>           * Section 7 of RFC6175 specifies that the Datatracker will
>             automatically move I-Ds into the "WG Document" state and
>             then later into the "Submitted to the IESG for Publication"
>             state when certain things happen.
>           * Therefore, the above two states are supposed to be used to
>             describe the state of some I-Ds in ALL working groups,
>             whether the Chairs put documents (manually) into those
>             states or not.  They are to be automatic state transitions.
>           *
>           * I suggest you hard code a check mark in the "Check Box" that
>             is current to the left of both of these two states, and then
>             do not let anyone remove those two check marks.  People who
>             attempt to remove these check marks should be presented
>             with a message to explain why these two states are
>             applicable to *all* WGs.

    I think that probably it's better if we gray out these states and 
disable their checkbox so they can not be unchecked. And probably add a 
message explaining why they can not be throw out at the top of the page.

>    4. Next point:  The list of possible states is organized
>       alphabetically.  RFC6174 contains a state diagram showing typical
>       or 'usual" state transitions for I-Ds through all of the states,
>       for WGs that decied to use all of the states.
>           * I suggest the states be re-ordered to more closely resemble
>             how an I-D might traverse the state diagram, from top to bottom.
>           * I suggest the list be re-ordered to read as follows:
>                 o Call For Adoption by WG Issued
>                 o Adopted by A WG
>                 o Adopted for WG Info Only
>                 o WG Document
>                 o Parked WG Document
>                 o Dead WG Document
>                 o In WG Last Call
>                 o Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
>                 o WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup
>                 o Sent to IESG for Publication

    Fine, I'll change the order of the states.

>           *   If possible, it would be good to include a pointer to the
>             state diagram in Section 4.1 of RFC6174

    Of course, without problem.

>
> Regards,
> Ed  J.

    Best,