On 1/24/17 6:30 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Robert, Thanks for the review, again! And thank you so much (for the whole set of people) for the new review tool and integration to the tracker. It makes my life much easier. Just a couple of discussion points relating to how we post these today wrt. before when we didn’t have the new tool yet. First, there’s been a change from “Gen-ART review: ….” to “Review of …” in the e-mail subject lines. Which do people prefer? I’ve obviously worked from the only-email-model so far, and ultimately me (or the next chair) will find the new ways of working. Which might be different from we’ve used to do. However, a knee jerk reaction from my side was that I’d like to see Gen-ART as a part of the subject line, because I often end up searching in e-mail. But maybe I shouldn’t...
We already have a request to either put the review team acronym on the subject line, or make the subject line a template that teams can customize.
Second, I’ve noticed that there’s been a couple of reviews that were in the tracker only, and were not posted via e-mail. Again, wondering if I’m just feeling anxiety over the change :-) or if there’s a real reason why we’d like to have also email. After being confused for one or two documents, I now know to to look at the tracker as well as e-mail. Maybe I should just work from the tracker in this case? But I wonder if I’ll end up searching on e-mail _as well_ anyway, because somebody may have responded on e-mail side, and this might not be reflected in the tracker. Or is it?
The tracker will point to the review in the archives (if it sent the message or if the reviewer tells the tracker about the message). The mailarchive tool's thread view can then find followups. The tracker is not intrinsically aware of any followup messages.
For the second issue, it might be possible to have the tool automatically mail reviews… and I think it does, except unless asked to do so (?)
Yes, if you enter the review in the tracker, it will send the message to the review team list. There's no way to ask it not to do that. The reviewer can change what _other_ lists are copied, but that's the extent. Can you point me to an example of a review that appeared in the tracker but not on the list? That sounds to me like you've found a bug.
But I’m obviously just one user among many. I have my own viewpoint, and arguably e.g., the role of the authors and other WG participants is an important one, more important than mine, because it is absolutely essential that they see whatever is commented. So I don’t want to drive any process from my limited viewpoint, but rather bring up an issue that surprises me and then discuss what’s the best way to handle that. And since the review tool is new, this would be a good moment for us to hash out any minor usage practices.
Agreed - my answers above reflect what I expect the tool to be doing now, and what we already think we want to change. But if anyone feels a different set of changes would be better, now would be a good time to discuss them.
Thoughts? Jari
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
