I think that the minutes need a different naming scheme than the papers
that individuals submit.
My only suggestion is that the minutes have file names that have the
full date and day, including the year and that the year be most significant
the month next, and the day last (Big Endian).
We also have the issue that sometimes the minutes are in one file for all
projects, and sometimes separate, making it hard to know whether the
minutes should be in the general directory or in each project directory.
I actually favor having individual reports, so that the minutes should
be in each project sub-directory. We could go back and split up the few
reports that are combined into separate files. Its an easy cut and paste
(but copy the attendeeds to each piece).
Thanks for trying to get us organized,
At 10:57 11/18/96 PST, JK Martin wrote:
>>Thanks for you suggestions about directory naming, etc. Your thoughts
>are greatly appreciated.
>>When Underscore took over PWG server administration last summer, we too
>were pretty shocked at the mess that existed at that time. We started
>to design a new approach based on a documented philosophy for naming,
>structuring, etc, but didn't have the time to implement it. (You know,
>the things that are done for "free" don't often make it to the top of
>the priority list!)
>>One thing we should do, though, is start formulating a *simple* plan
>to improve the current structure, even if only modestly. To that end,
>some comments on your proposals:
>>> Subject: SENSE directory moved on PWG FTP server -Reply
>>>> How 'bout
>> pwg/pwg (for overall PWG issues)
>>This certainly looks pretty good. I would suggest, though, that we don't
>have a "pwg/pwg" directory, as such a naming scheme can get pretty confusing
>during correspondence; instead, how about "pwg/general" to refer to the
>overall PWG stuff?
>>Regarding your proposals for common subdirectories under each project:
>>How about just "drafts"? While the PWG sure does do a lot with the IETF,
>we shouldn't preclude the idea of having draft documents that are not tied
>to the IETF.
>>How about just plain old "rfc"? That way the TLA texture remains pure
>and consistent... ;-)
>>Oh boy. This looks like a black hole waiting to consume all incoming
>documents. We would strongly discourage this approach. Perhaps all
>project directories need something like a "misc" for miscellaneous
>documents that are not easily placed in other existing categories.
>>These are all quite good. It would be nice, though, to reduce the
>"action-items" directory name to a single word, perhaps something
>like "action", or whatever.
>>What do the other PWG folks think about these topics? Does anyone
>really care out there?