[Ietf-and-github] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-git-using-github/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Updated, see comments from Francesca below)
I am agreeing with many issues raised by Mirja.

**********************************************************************
* Note, that I am conducting an experiment when people aspiring to be*
* Area Directors get exposed to AD work ("AD shadowing experiment"). *
* As a part of this experiment they get to review documents on IESG  *
* telechats according to IESG Discuss criteria document and their    *
* comments get relayed pretty much verbatim to relevant editors/WGs. *
* As an AD I retain responsibility in defending their position when  *
* I agree with it.                                                   *
* Recipients of these reviews are encouraged to reply to me directly *
* about perceived successes or failures of this experiment.          *
**********************************************************************

The following comments were provided by Francesca Palombini
<[e-mail]>om>. My comments are marked with [[Alexey:]]
below.

Francesca would have balloted *YES* on this document. She wrote:

Comment:

I see the value of the document stating: "if you use GitHub, this is the best
practice, if you want to follow it." The document motivates covering GitHub by
stating that it has "a very large community of contributors". I still think
some additional considerations should be there about using other services,
possibly having IETF hosting a git server, even by saying "it is out of scope
of this document" (implying it might be covered by a different BCP?).

Section 4.1 "When deciding to use GitHub..."
I'd like a sentence saying that WG chairs SHOULD evaluate over time and MAY
change these policies based on the WG experience. I do think what described in
this document is very valuable, but let's not forget that each WG is different
and might need to make tweaks on the way, to get the best out of it. -- Just
reached Section 5 where this is stated. Still think it would be good to have it
in Section 4.1 as well.