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

["Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]>]

>    Today, we rely on people catching the worst of that behaviour by reviewing documents, especially at WGLC or IETF LC.  None of that changes.  I'd argue that this approach improves the situation by giving a public venue to those side discussions, both by allowing others to jump in and by recording a transcript of events.
  
This is a very important point.  The discussion transcript is recorded in the issue thread, they are often relayed/summarized to mailing lists, and often copied into individual git repositories.  I strongly believe that we're more likely to see increased transparency. (I have one datapoint to back that up, when OpenSSL moved from private servers to doing "github first", the change was huge.  Yes, code isn't I-D's, but still...)

    > 5: Moving state (primarily issues) from a personal repo to a WG one when a
    > document is adopted is non-trivial

It's a simple matter of coding as the saying goes. :) The API's are there to make it trivial, it just hasn't been done yet.

    > but I
    > really don't think that the IETF should be implying that this is the "one true
    > way" (BCP) (nor do I like the WG hosted model).
    
Are we doing that?  I think it's "if you want to do this kind of thing (use github) here's the best way to do it in our experience."

We often say we're not the protocol police.  Nor are we the git cops.