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

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

As someone else said, I think the BCP is not that working groups should use
github but rather that if they do chose to this documents BCP
considerations for how to do so.

(But I do think it's disappointing that github.com [and gitlab.com] seem to
be IPv4-only in 2020.)

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:12 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I pragmatically say - I disagree with BCP github.com IPv4.
>
> I wait a bit and I might unregister from this group, even though I
> recently gladly accepted the invitation to join.  Things move fast :-)
>
> Alex
>
>
> Le 12/03/2020 à 16:05, Stewart Bryant a écrit :
> > Pragmatism should alway trump perfection
> >
> > - Stewart
> >
> >> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:23, Alexandre Petrescu <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I do not understand - will this become a BCP even though github is
> IPv4-only?
> >>
> >> I am asking, because if it is so, then I think I disagree.
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 12/03/2020 à 15:16, Alissa Cooper a écrit :
> >>> WG:
> >>> Based on discussion with Alvaro on the IESG telechat today, I said I
> would take out the RFC Editor note about BCP 25 tomorrow if no one from the
> WG objects. This document will then get its own BCP number when it is
> published.
> >>> Alissa
> >>>> On Mar 12, 2020, at 8:40 AM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-and-github mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>