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

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

To be precise, my review said:

> Is this draft intended to become part of BCP25? I think it would be
> useful for the IESG to clarify this rather than leave it to the RFC Editor.

I intentionally didn't express an opinion.

   Brian
On 13-Mar-20 01:40, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> I am indifferent about this being part of BCP 25. Brian suggested it so I added the note. I’m happy to remove the note if necessary. 
> 
> Alissa
> 
> 
>> On Mar 11, 2020, at 4:39 PM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On March 11, 2020 at 3:32:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>
>> Brian:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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.."
>>>
>>> Would a sentence to that effect in the Abstract and Introduction help?
>>
>> It wouldn't hurt, but it also doesn't help with my issue: having this
>> document be part of BCP 25.
>>
>>
>>
>> ....
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Have things changed? In the old days this question (which BCP number?) was
>>> typically left to the discretion of the RFC Editor, possibly with a bit of
>>> discussion with the AD. I certainly don't object to community discussion, of
>>> course (and we did do that in the case of BCP 101 recently).
>>
>> No, I don't think things have changed.  In this case, the AD added a
>> note to the RFC Editor requesting them to "append this document to BCP
>> 25 at the time of publication."
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-git-using-github/writeup/
>>
>>
>> However, I believe that BCP 25 is a special case because it applies
>> directly to WG operation.  The intention of adding documents to it
>> should (at least) be clear and some discussion should exist.
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
> 
> .
>