[Gendispatch] Re: [procon] Re: Derivative Works: draft-sayre-gendispatch-derivative-01

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> I am guessing the primary reason we don't track concerns in any
    >> systematic way is because WG Chairs find this too much work.

    > This will probably fall to the culture of individual working groups.

Yes.  It is the job to make sure that issues are tracked.

Most of the time, that means some combination of bribes and guilt-trips of
the authors to get the work done.

But, sometimes that also means taking the review email, and splitting it up
into issues/subissues (I'm still on the fence as to whether github's "new"
subissue system is useful), and then proding the *WG* to deal with it.
Solving the problems is not the sole responsability of the authors.
As *editors*, in some ways, they should only do what the WG tells them, but
most editors are also significant contributors....

    > For my part, when we hit last call, I tend to review the list archives
    > to attempt to assess how discussion was addressed.  I believe this is
    > common practice among many chairs.

It's an explicit shepherd activity.
Which often falls to the chairs.

While I was tolerant of github issues (v6 being one) in years past, the
recent disasters there have now convinced me that we have to control our own
stuff here.  The OpenPGP WG has used gitlab for along time.

*git* itself is very marxist, in that all repositories are equal, so
that part of the backup is immediately useful... but the issue tracking
stuff, and the magic "close #xxx" is not, since the XXX is essentially a
github-local artifact.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [