Subject: Re: Suggestion for Action Items handling

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:53:45 -0400

I think we can do this, but I think I need a bit more clarification on 
just what you'd like to see.
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
07/10/00 11:43 AM

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc:     [email-masked]
        Subject:        Re: Suggestion for Action Items handling

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
>   In order to make it easier for folks (new or old hands) to find out
> when/how an Action Item was resolved (or at least where we reached our
> final answer), Id like to suggest that some (Doug??) 'tag' the
> thread/posting as relating to that Action Item.  For example, instead of
> wading thru 15 "Re: NOOP" and "Re: NOOP again", etc it to find a
> resolution response, can someone (ie: Doug or the WG cochairs) please
> 'tag' or send a final response to the WG like "W-31 NOOP command:
> Resolution (was Re: Re[2]: NOOP yet again...)"
> 
>   Even w/the ability to have full text indexing like I do, a FT index is
> usually weighted by score rather than by "most recent first" (otherwise
> its not that great a FT indexer).    Does this sound like a good
> suggestion?  Who would be willing to take that mantle for now: Doug, 
Pat,
> Paul???

I would think that a chair would need to do this.

Have you tried sorting the threads by date? I would think that the
last one would be a good bet.

-Doug

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:13:34 -0400

>last one would be a good bet.

I have but this is not always convenient as there can be several 
occurances of a thread and  depending on how the threads get sorted (by 
ascending/descending date/time, etc) you may not see what you expect. 
Plus, if a thread is NOT prefixed with its Action Item then what is a 
person to search for??  I try to use W-#, etc when Im posting but I 
sometimes forget to do that.

I thought I explained it in the text I originally sent so Ill rephrase it 
since it must not have been clear enough.

Given:
1: Not all postings on a particular AI are clearly indicated in the 
posting subject (ie: "NOOP?" instead of "W-31 NOOP?" or "W-31 NOOP command?")
2: There can be several disjoint threads on a particular AI that occur at 
various points in time before an AI is considered completed or resolved.

Whereas:

  It is not easy, for several reasons, for anyone scanning the archives or 
threads to find out when/where/what the actual chair decision on a 
particular Action Item (AI) from the weekly AI list.  There should be a 
simple way to at least find the final decision on an AI in the archives.

Proposed:

  When the chair deems an AI to have been resolved (or unresolvable) that 
the chair 'tags' the discussion thread with a posting that indicates the 
AIs status.  This 'tagging' would be a simple email posting to the thread 
that clearly indicates the AI and that the message is how the AI was 
resolved.  This 'tag' would be of the format "AI# & title: Resolution" and 
could be followed by the original subject if desired.

  For example, for a thread that was about the NOOP command (AI "W-31 NOOP 
command") that began as Subject: "NOOP again??" the chair would post a 
message to list with the Subject: "W-31 NOOP command: Resolved" or 
possibly "W-31 NOOP command: Resolved (was Re[3]: NOOP again??"  This 
would make searching the archives for answers MUCH easier as the search 
could be for ": Resolved" or the well known format of "W-31 NOOP command: 
Resolved".

  If multiple AIs are resolved at the same time, they can be comma 
separated before the ": Resolved".  For example: "W-31 NOOP command, W-32 NOOP advisory only: Resolved"

  If folks think this later case may generate subjects that are too long, 
the format could easily be abreviated to just "AI#: Resolved" making the 
multiple case example shortened to just "W-31, W-32: Resolved".  I would suggest that we not abbreviate it down to "W-31,32: Resolved" 
since some search engines can do searches like "W-32 AND Resolved" and 
that would not be matchable in the very shortened case.

  Does this clarify my suggestion??  Would the co-chairs be willing to do 
this?

Bruce
==========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:13:34 -0400

Given:

Whereas:

Proposed:

Bruce

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:25:31 -0400

Bruce, I can see that you are looking for a quick way to scan the list (as 
opposed to opening and reading the mail). Hm.  In principle, it sounds 
like a good idea, however it will be a bit more work for the chairs.  I 
think we may be able to put together something that says Resolved Items in 
the subject and then list all the items in a single note.  I'm not wild 
about having to send out individual notes on each item simply to make it 
easier to scan in an inbox.  Too much additional effort - and I'm not sure 
of the payback.  Anyone else have an opinion?
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:56:13 -0400

Pat replied:
>In principle, it sounds like a good idea, however it will be a bit more 
work for the chairs.

Its only 1 more email and it can be a quite brief.  It can be just a line 
or two saying that the concensus is "Blech" and thats its...  Im not 
asking for a technical resummary of the thread. %^|

>I think we may be able to put together something that says Resolved Items 
in the subject and then list all the items in a single note.

That may as well be added to the Action Item list instead if thats your 
route.  No use having to have 2 lists to consult: 1 for the items and 1 
for the thumbs up/down.  Besides, we already have a column for that in the 
AI List.

>I'm not wild about having to send out individual notes on each item 
simply to make it easier to scan in an inbox.  Too much additional effort 
- and I'm not sure of the payback.

We dont resolve 'em that fast that its gonna be that much work.  Its not 
just for scanning my inbox but rather for folks who scan the _archives_ 
that want to find out what was covered on a particular AI!!

The payback is simple; it allows anyone who questions an AI thats been 
resolved to quickly find the thread that lead to the decision.  That way 
we do not get new folks who see the nice weekly list but have a tough time 
finding in the 3+ year archive we discussed a particular AI...  It also 
allows for quick lookups of discussions should a topic get reraised (ie: 
HTTP as a transport! %^| )

Enough preaching, Ive made my case and attempted to support it...  If 
there are other ideas on this or better suggestions, Id love to hear em. 
(We have 300+ folks on this list and only 4-6 post so the lurkers need to 
speak up if they want this!..)

Bruce
===========================================================================