[Gendispatch] Re: Issue tracking [was Re: Derivative Works: draft-sayre-gendispatch-derivative-01]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 16-Jul-26 10:42, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Thanks, Brian. Appreciate you changing the subject.
> 
> FWIW, a number of IETF WGs do do issue tracking in GitHub. For instance, QUIC, TLS (at least TLS, DTLS, and ECH specs), AIPREF, etc.

Yes, and individual drafts now often have this too (with or without automatic copies to the WG list). I think this is in general a good thing, and I'm not sure we need formal rules about it - but it does provide common knowledge about detailed discussions that might otherwise remain private, and that can only be a good thing.

    Brian

> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 3:03 PM Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     I'll simply observe that this whole subthread is irrelevant to the draft in the Subject header. Whether issue tracking should be a formal part of the IETF standards process is an interesting question but IMHO it needs its own draft.
> 
>     Regards/Ngā mihi
>          Brian Carpenter
>     On 16-Jul-26 06:40, Michael Richardson wrote:
>      >
>      > Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]> http://www.sandelman.ca/ <http://www.sandelman.ca/>        |   ruby on rails    [
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > procon mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>      > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     -- 
>     Gendispatch mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>