[Ietf-and-github] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: No Objection

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** I support Alvaro Retana’s DISCUSS position

** I philosophically agree with much of what Warren Kumari noted, and like
Deborah Brungard and Adam Roach, I would have been more comfortable with an
information document (given how the normative language was used).  However, the
charter of the WG was to deliver a BCP and this document is it.

** I strongly concur with Mirja Kühlewind point #12, that we should be careful
about guidance on when to publish the I-D.  For all of the virtues of using
GitHub to reach new audiences, not all audiences will check there, so regular
I-D updates when major changes are made is important.

Left unsaid for me from the feedback of my colleagues was:

** Section 10.  As there are no plans to formally backup anything beyond the
repos and the mail, the mitigation of “[t]ools exist for extracting this
information for backup” seems weak.  One of the real appeals of GitHub is that
information/those services and their respective integrations.  Hence, what are
those tools?  Who should take responsibility for that backup (if anyone)?  Why
aren’t they being backed up?