issue tracker usage [Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt (first use of template!)]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
[...]
> But, now that it has been conveniently placed in the "issue tracker"
> form, does that mean that the authors are obligated to dig into
> the details and respond?
>  
> This is the very concern I was expressing in my earlier message
> in terms of "issue overload" - shouldn't we be discussing the issues
> on the list first so that there can be some first-pass filtering before
> bogging down the authors?

I'm not sure what's your specific concern here.

To clarify, we're not recording discussions in the issue tracker.  Any 
follow-up comments etc. are done on the list.  The document editor, then, 
at some  point, proposes a resolution to the issue.  That is also 
discussed on the list.  The resolution is recorded in the issue tracker.

I fully support first discussing the issues on the list.  That's fine, and 
that's why there is the "Reference" field in the template.

Remember, the issue tracker is not meant to be an exclusive tool in the 
document improvement process.  It's mostly aimed to be a tool where the 
submitter of an issue wants to get the issue formally recorded, and taken 
care of, using a process.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings