IETF
secretariat@jabber.ietf.org
Wednesday, 15 August 2012< ^ >
Room Configuration

GMT+0
[18:18:16] cmorgan joins the room
[18:19:02] RjS joins the room
[18:19:15] avezza joins the room
[18:19:17] <RjS> test
[18:19:20] <RjS> test
[18:19:22] <cmorgan> hi
[18:19:26] <avezza> test?
[18:19:33] <RjS> yeah - making sure I could get messages in
[18:19:36] <RjS> it had some lag
[18:19:58] <RjS> So http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dime/ is in an unusual state
[18:20:21] <RjS> how did the recharter on that one start? (do you remember what steps you went through?)
[18:20:57] <cmorgan> We got a ticket from the AD and started the recharter using the datatracker
[18:21:07] <cmorgan> It looks like we missed a step in pasting the new proposed charter text in at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dime/submit/
[18:21:11] <cmorgan> I am doing that now
[18:21:16] <avezza> Well, we got an email from Benoit that only had the diff. So I pieced together the internal announcement.
[18:21:25] <RjS> wow
[18:21:35] <RjS> (that benoit only sent a diff)
[18:22:10] <RjS> cindy - do you remember how you got to the point where you had that submit form?
[18:22:42] <RjS> (If you want to poke around to jog memory, you can use the test instance I set up awhile back: https://dt-test.rjsparks.org/doc/charter-ietf-sipcore/)
[18:22:48] <cmorgan> To be perfectly honest, no :)
[18:22:52] <RjS> the data there is stale, but the code should be close
[18:23:18] <RjS> the part that bothers me most about this is we have a ballot against 06 instead of 06-00 or 06-0x for some other x
[18:23:24] <avezza> (well, then he promptly went on vacation.... to be fair he's been pretty responsive to questions and such - it is just he wasn't actually available to answer them)
[18:24:05] <cmorgan> I just added version charter-ietf-dime-06-00; how does that affect the ballot?
[18:24:34] <RjS> same as drafts
[18:24:38] <RjS> the ballot is still good
[18:25:26] <RjS> that improves the current state of the production system
[18:25:41] <RjS> I still want to try to figure out how it got into that state so I can clean up whatever did that
[18:26:11] <RjS> (and there's a bunch of stuff broken still that I'll be chasing - the diff tool in the history tab has some wrong in it)
[18:27:41] <cmorgan> I think part of the problem is that we were doing this piecemeal. I was out sick on Monday, and so Amy was working on this, but she hadn't really worked with the charter tool yet and so I came back in later to add it to the agenda and put the state in "Internal Review." Amy, when I go to to it, it was in the state "Informal IESG revew." Do you remember how you got it there?
[18:27:48] <RjS> do you have a tool for manipulating these charters (or starting a recharter) in the secretariat tool branch?
[18:28:12] <cmorgan> we used to, but it doesn't work since the datatracker version came out
[18:28:34] <cmorgan> (except for milestones. We still have to use our secretariat tool to deal with milestones)
[18:30:04] <avezza> Yeah, I was here I think: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dime/ and clicked first on Charter States, backed out of that and then on the link that I THINK said "Approved" (from when it was rechartered in May, maybe?)
[18:30:38] <RjS> AWESOME
[18:30:49] <RjS> yes, that's probably what you did
[18:30:53] <avezza> Did that help?
[18:30:55] <RjS> yes
[18:31:15] <RjS> So, if you get another one of these before I can push some code fixes in
[18:31:27] <RjS> Use the link _next_ to that that says "Recharter"
[18:31:51] <avezza> Uh, at the time there WAS no other link.
[18:32:16] <RjS> well, lets see if we can find a group in that state
[18:32:55] <RjS> I think there was
[18:32:57] <cmorgan> There wasn't something like "Charter State: Approved - Recharter"? (That's what I remember from IPSECME)
[18:33:07] <RjS> the stuff at dt-test.rjsparks.org still has older data
[18:33:08] <RjS> look here:
[18:33:14] <RjS> https://dt-test.rjsparks.org/doc/charter-ietf-dime/
[18:33:51] <avezza> I see a link on that for a "Recharter"
[18:33:54] <RjS> yeah
[18:34:29] <RjS> if you can keep an eye out for any current WGs page that has "approved" in that first field, but "recharter" doesn't show up, please let me know
[18:34:31] <avezza> Which that looks more familiar now - that is where you put the revision, right? Without milestones?
[18:34:37] <RjS> yes
[18:34:50] <RjS> the first revision that starts a rechartering effort
[18:35:29] <RjS> I'll be editing the form so that that "approved" isn't a link (the place where it is should be a link when it's in other states).
[18:35:46] <RjS> And make the form more descriptive, similar to what I did for the conflict review
[18:35:58] <RjS> things like "Start rechartering effort"
[18:36:14] <avezza> That would be useful!
[18:36:17] <RjS> I think if dime had a ballot in the system from the new tool before
[18:36:53] <RjS> that if you did what you did with this one (going back into the link at "approved" and changing the state there), it would have more obviously exposed bugs
[18:37:27] <avezza> Okay.
[18:41:29] <RjS> ok - thanks for your time - I'll go see if I can make this better
[18:41:37] <cmorgan> thank you!
[18:41:50] <avezza> Thanks!
[19:24:56] cmorgan leaves the room
[20:45:48] avezza leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!