registry issue tracker

[Ray Plante]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, dower at stsci.edu wrote:
> I'm a bit confused on what you intend for the 'issues registry', perhaps 
> because of your overloading the term. I think an actual registry would 
> be a good deal of overkill,

I shouldn't have used that term--my mistake.

What Michael has been doing to date (which has been universally 
appreciated) has been about communication with the original publishers. 
What I sense we have not had to date is sufficient communication/
cooperation among registry providers.  So this issue tracker I'm talking 
about is really something shared amongst us registry providers, not wider 
than that, and does not concern the health of the underlying services.

So the issue tracker is meant to accomplish two things:

    o  determine which registry the record comes from, and therefore,
       which provider needs to get involved.

    o  providing a documentation trail that let's us know when its fixed.
       (That's the bugzilla-or-whatever part we could put on it.)

Tom speculated a bit about the questions of "who" would run this, and I 
wasn't really thinking too much about this part, yet.

cheers,
Ray