Re: Suggestion for Action Items handling

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx]

Doug suggested:
>Have you tried sorting the threads by date? I would think that the
>last one would be a good bet.

I have but this is not always convenient as there can be several occurances of a thread and  depending on how the threads get sorted (by ascending/descending date/time, etc) you may not see what you expect.  Plus, if a thread is NOT prefixed with its Action Item then what is a person to search for??  I try to use W-#, etc when Im posting but I sometimes forget to do that.

Pat replied:
>I think we can do this, but I think I need a bit more clarification on just what you'd like to see.

I thought I explained it in the text I originally sent so Ill rephrase it since it must not have been clear enough.

Given:
1: Not all postings on a particular AI are clearly indicated in the posting subject (ie: "NOOP?" instead of "W-31 NOOP?" or "W-31 NOOP command?")
2: There can be several disjoint threads on a particular AI that occur at various points in time before an AI is considered completed or resolved.

Whereas:

  It is not easy, for several reasons, for anyone scanning the archives or threads to find out when/where/what the actual chair decision on a particular Action Item (AI) from the weekly AI list.  There should be a simple way to at least find the final decision on an AI in the archives.

Proposed:

  When the chair deems an AI to have been resolved (or unresolvable) that the chair 'tags' the discussion thread with a posting that indicates the AIs status.  This 'tagging' would be a simple email posting to the thread that clearly indicates the AI and that the message is how the AI was resolved.  This 'tag' would be of the format "AI# & title: Resolution" and could be followed by the original subject if desired.

  For example, for a thread that was about the NOOP command (AI "W-31 NOOP command") that began as Subject: "NOOP again??" the chair would post a message to list with the Subject: "W-31 NOOP command: Resolved" or possibly "W-31 NOOP command: Resolved (was Re[3]: NOOP again??"  This would make searching the archives for answers MUCH easier as the search could be for ": Resolved" or the well known format of "W-31 NOOP command: Resolved".

  If multiple AIs are resolved at the same time, they can be comma separated before the ": Resolved".  For example: "W-31 NOOP command, W-32 NOOP advisory only: Resolved"

  If folks think this later case may generate subjects that are too long, the format could easily be abreviated to just "AI#: Resolved" making the multiple case example shortened to just "W-31, W-32: Resolved".  I would suggest that we not abbreviate it down to "W-31,32: Resolved" since some search engines can do searches like "W-32 AND Resolved" and that would not be matchable in the very shortened case.

  Does this clarify my suggestion??  Would the co-chairs be willing to do this?

Bruce
==========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature