Re: draft status links on the wg pages?

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > 1. Move these Status pages out of the "tools" development area and make 
> > them an official part of a working group's "official" pages.
>
> That isn't simply a matter of wishing it to be so. It actually involves work 
> (to make the tools that generate these pages ready to hand over) and expense 
> (since this would be new work for the Secretariat).

And this is distinguished from any other recommendation for change made in the
IETF how?

It is certain to be true that moving any of the Tools work into ongoing
production use is going to require Secretariat expense. Are you arguing against
ever doing that?

(In other words, Brian, what is your point in stating this, here?
It almost would seem to be an argument against ever making any changes
involving the Secretariat, and I suspect you don't mean that.)

By way of anticipating a plausible answer:

    If you are encouraging some form of cost/benefit consideration, beyond what
has taken place so far, then I think that is an excellent idea for most work
involving the IETF.

    With respect to the benefit of the specific suggestions I am making: My
reference to activity-based GUI design was intended to provide a bit of benefit
justification.  To extend that a bit more: The new page header -- and the left
column has grown on me enough so that I'll include that, too -- is an enormous
improvement for participant navigation.  The Status-specific content has had
plenty of postings noting its benefit to make the justification of its movement
to production use equally clear.

    But, Brian, the concern for costs ought to extend much farther, such as to
the kinds of issues raised by an IESG Discuss so that the AD provides an
explanation of the benefit that justifies the considerable cost in delay and wg
effort they are imposing...


> > 3. Remove the documents list from the WG charter page, since it is 
> > redundant with the Status page and less complete.
>
> However, it contains different information - it "knows" which drafts are 
> official WG drafts, and it includes "obsoleted by/ updated by" information 
> for RFCs.

Good point.  Then I suggest that the Tools folks upgrade the Status page to
include those features.


> There's also a whole other topic: what gets archived when a WG is closed.

My suggestion:  Everything.  The benefits of having an extensive archival record 
of IETF efforts is pretty clear, and I have heard that storage is pretty 
inexpensive, these days.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf