WG Quality Processes WG

Margaret Wasserman mrw at windriver.com
Mon Jun 2 10:34:38 CEST 2003

At 04:29 PM 6/2/2003 +0300, john.loughney at nokia.com wrote:
> > 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.

I respectfully disagree...

One of the problems with the IETF, IMO, is how little communication
we have, and how much of it has to flow through certain bottlenecks
(including IESG members and WG chairs).  Also, why would we want to
introduce the human error of a WG chair into what should be a fully
automated process?

There may be a bunch of "noise" transition that the WG doesn't
need to know about, but the transitions between meaningful states
should just be sent, automatically, directly to the WG.  It's
not as though state changes happen _all_ that often, and we
could include some well-known tag in the subject or from field,
so that folks who are irritated by them can filter them...

I'd even be happy (not now, but in the lull between Vienna and
Minneapolis, perhaps) to help write-up a meaningful description
of each state change to include at the bottom of each e-mail
message, so that newcomers and lightly engaged participants
wouldn't be confused by the messages...


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list