Subject: [apps-discuss] Updated links to the list of reviews page

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:24:05 +0200 (CEST)

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 8/14/2013 6:28 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
>> I'll add a link to the wiki pages I can edit as soon as I'm back next
>> week and I have a better connectivity...

I did add a set of more evident links to our AppsDir wiki pages thus they 
should show more the http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker 
page.

Now it's up to ADs and IESG to decide how to make this also more generally 
visible!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:31:22 -0700

On 8/22/2013 9:24 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
> I did add a set of more evident links to our AppsDir wiki pages thus
> they should show more the
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/tracker page.
>
> Now it's up to ADs and IESG to decide how to make this also more
> generally visible!

ack. tnx.

and while we have this thread going, I'll wonder out loud about an 
additional thought:

    The sequence of reviews various people do for a doc should be linked 
to the document history in the datatracker.  (A link, not a copy, in the 
tracker.)

    This would require some sort of addressing convention for the review 
-- and possibly more conventions than that -- probably for one of the 
<draft name>.* addresses.

I think it should all be kept quite simple and open.  For example, 
anyone wanting to offer a "review" should be allowed to; don't restrict 
the sources of reviews.  If someone abuses that, then remove the link by 
hand.  My guess is that that won't be a significant problem.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:40:04 +0200 (CEST)

> and while we have this thread going, I'll wonder out loud about an additional 
> thought:
>
>   The sequence of reviews various people do for a doc should be linked to 
> the document history in the datatracker.  (A link, not a copy, in the 
> tracker.)

that's a good idea (and we should include all reviews, wherever they come 
from).

>   This would require some sort of addressing convention for the review -- 
> and possibly more conventions than that -- probably for one of the <draft 
> name>.* addresses.

this is the tricky part... reviews usually are e-mail messages, with not 
always consistent Subject line (as this is inserted by the sender), and 
errors in this sort of tagging are always possible. Making the Datatracker 
be able to pick up automatically from ML archives (like apps-discuss) 
seems somehow a non simple problem to solve. Maybe enabling some other 
function (a revier does send the e-mail review message ALSO to a special 
robot address which then makes the link from the ML to Datatracker 
automatically); something similar to what we have for

    <[email-masked]>

e.g.

To: bla bla bla...
cc: <[email-masked]>

> I think it should all be kept quite simple and open.  For example, anyone 
> wanting to offer a "review" should be allowed to; don't restrict the sources 
> of reviews.  If someone abuses that, then remove the link by hand.  My guess 
> is that that won't be a significant problem.
>

I Agree.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 06:45:02 -0700

On 8/23/2013 6:40 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
> errors in this sort of tagging are always possible. Making the

Fair point.  And as you describe it, I'd have to agree that some 
percentage of folk are certain to screw it up, given its free-form nature.

> Datatracker be able to pick up automatically from ML archives (like
> apps-discuss) seems somehow a non simple problem to solve. Maybe
> enabling some other function (a revier does send the e-mail review
> message ALSO to a special robot address which then makes the link from
> the ML to Datatracker automatically); something similar to what we have for
>

yeah, that seems reasonable.

if a reviewer doesn't remember to include this address, it's not a big 
deal for the doc shepherd (or whoever) to forward to that address.  so 
this approach seems like it has both simplicity and robustness to it.

d/