WG Quality Processes WG

john.loughney at nokia.com john.loughney at nokia.com
Mon Jun 2 17:29:25 CEST 2003

Hi Harald,

> the mechanical things can be done, with just a Small Matter of 
> Programming... the trick is to figure out which ones actually help....

Of course, however, I am definately a proponent of the 'more info is better'

> > It would be great, for example, if
> >
> >  a) WGs that were more than 6 months late on one of their deliverables
> > where      sent montly reminders of the fact until either the deliverable
> > was completed      or charter was updated.
> currently we're going for bimonthly reminders to chairs on all overdue 
> milestones... I'm not sure how much that helps in the long run, but it's a start...

A gentle reminder is not a bad thing, speaking as a chair ...

> >  b) If the Draft-tracker had a time out, so that any document sitting in
> > a certain state for too long (say 4 months) generated a mail to the
> > mailing list, document     editor(s)/author(s), sheparding AD about the
> > status.
> well.... state "RFC Published" and "dead" are quite OK for a document to 
> stay in, of course; "AD is watching" is doubtful (could change if/when the 
> system is extended to do WG tracking) - otherwise, it would seem to make 
> sense.

OK, OK, I guess I should have added 'relevant' state ...

> >  c) if the draft-tracker would send mail to a WG, author(s)/editor(s)
> > everytime a     document changed state
> Already on the wishlist. I don't think the whole WG wants *all* the state 
> changes, so the WG chairs could act as a filter.....

That is fine, as long as it is mentioned that the chair SHOULD forward
relevant info to the WG.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list