Dave Crocker wrote:
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?
Not at all. In fact, the IAD wants to do that; but we have to choose
which tools are first in the queue.
(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.
There's an element of taste and personal working habits involved,
but basically I agree with you, as long as we keep our pages clean
and simple, and meet accessibility requirements.
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...
Hence the DISCUSS criteria document, which is a work in progress (and
likely to become an ION).
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.
Makes sense to me.
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.
True, and for that to be useful, you need a version managament system for
the archived material.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf