Re: [Ietf-and-github] Closing issues

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

The process we've used in QUIC has been that in the early stages post-adoption, the changes in a draft reflect the editors' proposals on the issues; there are consensus calls on *document versions*, to ensure that any point where there is not consensus on what's in the document has an issue filed.  As the draft gets more stable, consensus calls are on a per-issue basis before text is put into the drafts.  The latter is considerably slower, and can be challenging for a document where there's a large volume of change at a rapid pace.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ietf-and-github <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 10:22 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-and-github] Closing issues

On 02-Nov-19 14:41, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Looking at the draft, I think something that would address the issue 
> Rob is raising is that the first paragraph of 4.1.2 (about closing 
> issues) get an extra sentence.  Along the lines of:
>      As noted in section 2.2, this guidance MUST be communicated to 
> and agreed by the working groups.

Agreed.
 
> One can argue that this is implicit in the document.  It seems like it 
> could help clarity and can't hurt.

It's already clear in the document that normal IETF process rules apply, i.e. RFC2418 etc. That certainly implies quite a lot, including of course that contested decisions are appealable.

Common sense says that editorial issues could be closed by whoever fixes them, but substantive decisions seem like WG consensus calls. The text says "Restrictions on closing issues are generally not advisable until a document has reached a certain degree of maturity."

I'm not sure what that means. Doesn't the fact that a document has been adopted by the WG mean that it has indeed reached a certain level of maturity and that future decisions are WG decisions, not author decisions?

Regards
   Brian

> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 11/1/2019 9:26 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 6:15 PM Salz, Rich <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>       * My concern is that topics can be deemed appropriate for GitHub,
>>         and diverted from a WG mailing list. That might
>>         inappropriately suppress discussion if those issues can then be
>>         closed based on non-public terms in GitHub.____
>>
>>
>>     Yes, that is a concern that **this** working group is definitely
>>     trying to discuss and address.
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's why I joined this WG to post my initial message.
>>
>> If I really wanted to disagree on a procedural point in a specific 
>> WG, I would just fork them and write my own draft.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf-and-github mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-and-github mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf-and-github mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github