[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggestion for Action Items handling
>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.
>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.
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.
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.
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: 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 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...
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature