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

[Ed Juskevicius <[e-mail]>]

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.
      -
   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.
      - 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.
      -
   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:
         - Call For Adoption by WG Issued
         - Adopted by A WG
         - Adopted for WG Info Only
         - WG Document
         - Parked WG Document
         - Dead WG Document
         - In WG Last Call
         - Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
         - WG Consensus: Waiting for Writeup
         - Sent to IESG for Publication
      -  If possible, it would be good to include a pointer to the state
      diagram in Section 4.1 of RFC6174
      -

Regards,

Ed  J.