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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

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.
>