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

["Emilio A. Sánchez" <[e-mail]>]

    Hi,

    All the changes required have been commited [1] and applied in the 
beta server.

    In summary:

    * Added state definitions
    * Freeze states applicable to *all* WGs. In this point I included 
the 'Call For Adoption By WG Issued' cause you need it to enter a draft 
in your WG workflow.
    * Re-order state list
    * Added a link to the state diagram

    Regards,

[1] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/ticket/644

El 30/03/11 16:17, Ed Juskevicius escribió:
> Good stuff here too.
> Thank You!
> Regards,
> Ed  J.
> -------------------
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:11 AM, "Emilio A. Sánchez" <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>        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,
>     _______________________________________________
>     yaco-wgchair-tracker mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yaco-wgchair-tracker
>
>