Subject: [iola-wgcharter-tool] Fwd: Charter-tool demo

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 17:20:57 +0200

Hi,

Please read below -- a demo site (not alpha or beta yet, this is
for feedback on the UI) of the WG charter tool is now available.
Do we have any eager test drivers?

Best regards,

	Henrik

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Charter-tool demo
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:33:32 +0200
From: Martin Qvist <[email-masked]>
To: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
CC: Ole Laursen <[email-masked]>

Hi Henrik

I've prepared a demo site for the charter tool. You can access it at 
http://beta.iola.dk:10003

The WG Records can be found under Other Documents in the menu, and 
there's a dummy group with acronym iolchat, that shows the features of a 
record (previous acronyms, etc.). WG Records are accessed as 
/wgrecord/acronym and previous acronyms of a WG redirect to the current 
acronym. You can change the state of the group as well as edit the 
fields. The IESG Review and IESG Writeups tabs don't yet work, and the 
History tab is only partially functional. This is mostly for feedback on 
the UI. Let me know what you think.

A couple of questions have also arisen:

* Since the charter tool changes Group objects I wanted to hear about
   how this tool should interact with wginfo. For instance, once a
   proposed group is approved (changes state to WG Exists) should it
   automatically change to Active group and show up in wginfo?
   Additionally, when a group is rechartered, I'm supposing that the
   wginfo view of the group should show the group as it was before the
   rechartering process, and only update once the rechartering process
   is finished (and should this also be automatic, once the state
   becomes WG Exists?).

* Although the RFC states that only the names on the chairs,
   secretaries, etc. of a group be shown, the tool uses Email (you can
   see it in edit). Should the email be shown in the WG record?

* Does the shepherding AD refer to the AD that takes part in the review
   process of the charter (i.e. shepherd in Document) or the AD of the
   group (i.e. ad in Group)? My guess was ad on Group.

* The RFC only asks for Mailing list email and archive, however, a
   subscribe address is also part of the Group model. Should this be
   part of the WG record?

* Regarding the annotations Initial chartering and Rechartering of the
   states: where/how should these be displayed?

* In section 5.1 of the RFC it states that you should be able to search
   based on "text in any of the fields". Does this include the charter
   text (content)?

* Regarding the charter texts:
   - I've named the charter Document objects with name: charter-
     ietf-example-XX and revision: YY. I initially though of using
     revision XX-YY, but this was there can be a ballot and iesg_process
     for each charter-ietf-example-XX. This also makes it easier to
     maintain wginfo during a chartering proces (it could just show
     charter-ietf-example-YY that has revision None). Are you ok with
     this?

   - Submission of the charter texts isn't part of the RFC. Will it be
     done with /submit/? Or is it done manually with /admin/?

   - The quickest way of setting up diff'ing of the charters would
     probably be to reuse http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff. What do you
     think?

Finally, I've changed Working Group in the AD Dashboard, so that it now 
resembles My Documents more. You can't yet create a WG record, but it 
shows what I had in mind.

All the code is in the repository if you want to have a look.

Best,
Martin

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:49:21 -0500

Martin: 

Overall the UI seems to be going in a reasonable direction (based on what I could exercise so far).
I like the rot13 example charter text :).

Two quick observations:

I had recently removed the "Change State" button from the IESG portion of the tracker, replacing it's functionality
by turning the state name into a link (when it made sense to edit it).

On the question of naming charters below (XX-YY, etc.) - I can't tell if you're proposing something different
than what's in section 2.3 of RFC 6292?

RjS