Re: [Ietf-and-github] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

A very good and wise change

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: iesg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 20 March 2020 at 15:50
To: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

    FYI, the status of this document was changed to informational.
    
    Alissa
    
    
    > On Mar 11, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
    > draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: Discuss
    > 
    > 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/
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > DISCUSS:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > This is a process DISCUSS.  I don't believe the status of this document as a
    > BCP belonging to BCP 25 was discussed in the WG or with the IETF community.
    > 
    > The Charter for the git WG only explicitly mentions BCP 9:
    > 
    >   The documents produced by this group will not alter the Internet Standards
    >   Process (BCP 9). They will describe how to work within it. Whether working
    >   groups choose to use GitHub or the documented policies to support their work
    >   will remain entirely at their discretion.
    > 
    > However, including this document as a part of BCP 25 (IETF Working Group
    > Guidelines and Procedures) results in the interpretation that it represents
    > consensus on how WGs should proceed -- and not that the decision "to use GitHub
    > or the documented policies...[is]...entirely at their discretion."
    > 
    > My reading of the mailing list is that the current RFC Editor note (in which
    > appending the document to BCP 25 is requested) was added only after the topic
    > was brought up in the Genart LC review.  [Did I miss the discussion?]
    > 
    > IOW, both (1) the process of reaching the conclusion that this document belongs
    > in BCP 25, and (2) the concept that this document would be part of BCP 25, are
    > the subject of my DISCUSS.    I would like for the IESG to discuss this topic.
    > 
    > Not expecting this document to be part of BCP 25, or having an explicit
    > discussion with the community about it, would lead me to clear my DISCUSS.
    > 
    > ====
    > [Non blocking comment.  I'm including it here because it is related to the
    > status of the document.]
    > 
    > This document would be very good Informational document.
    > 
    > I am not a regular GitHub user (and none of the WGs I'm responsible for use it
    > as part of their process), but I have no reason to doubt that the text
    > represents what is believed to be the best way to use GitHub within the IETF
    > process.  However, the designation as a BCP can create confusion.  [Again, this
    > is a non-blocking comment.]
    > 
    > 
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > COMMENT:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > 
    > (0) I share Warren's concerns.
    > 
    > (1) The datatracker should list draft-thomson-git-using-github as being
    > replaced by this document.
    > 
    > (2) It would be nice to have a short terminology section; I assume many people
    > reading this document will not already be GitHub-savy, so push, pull, commits,
    > may not be familiar to them.  Alternatively, an Informational pointer to a
    > tutorial would also be ok.
    > 
    > (3) Personally, I don't have an issue with the use of GitHub, but some of the
    > statements in the Introduction sound like marketing blurbs, for example:
    > 
    > - "Use of this service has been found to reduce the time that Working Groups
    >   need to produce documents and to improve the quality of the final result."
    > 
    > - "...encourage contributions from a larger set of contributors."
    > 
    > - "Using GitHub can also broaden the community of contributors for a
    >   specification."
    > 
    > (4) [nit] s/This is problematic for contributors who do not track discussion
    > closely./This is problematic for contributors who do not track discussions
    > closely.
    > 
    > (5) [major]  §5.3: "Working Group chairs SHOULD confirm that the Working Group
    > has consensus to adopt any process."  When would the chairs not confirm
    > consensus to adopt a process?  IOW, why is this not a MUST?
    > 
    > Note that §3 says this:
    > 
    >   Working Group Chairs are responsible for determining how to best
    >   accomplish the charter objectives in an open and transparent fashion.
    >   The Working Group Chairs are responsible for determining if there is
    >   interest in using GitHub and making a consensus call to determine if
    >   the proposed policy and use is acceptable.
    > 
    > Even though this text doesn't use rfc2119 keywords, my impression of the intent
    > is that it is required for the chairs to make the consensus call.  IOW, I think
    > that this text and the one above (from §5.3) are in conflict.
    > 
    > (6) §5.3.2:
    > 
    >   Gaining Working Group consensus about the resolution of issues can be
    >   done in the abstract, with editors being permitted to capture the
    >   outcome of discussions as they see fit.
    > 
    > This sentence doesn't sound right to me: "consensus...can be done in the
    > abstract, with editors being permitted to capture the outcome...as they see
    > fit".  That last part doesn't sound right: Chairs call consensus.  Maybe I'm
    > misinterpreting...
    > 
    > (7) [major]. Why is draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration listed as a
    > Normative Reference?  I don't think that dependency is needed.
    > 
    > 
    >