Re: [Ietf-and-github] Draft: requirements for third-party tools

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 22 March 2017 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DAC31241FC for <ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 18:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wTkpsmne4dTI for <ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 18:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 156C9128656 for <ietf-and-github@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 18:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C48922E255; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:09:19 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <F9DD9188-73F6-4F9F-948E-4E590DC6BF97@cooperw.in>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:09:17 +1100
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, ietf-and-github@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8801911B-5E60-4D6D-8AB2-F0D01E69D84E@mnot.net>
References: <246FA5A3-AEE4-4EBD-9FA4-7B3203B9E0BC@mnot.net> <10165B9B-98DB-4F8C-A1CD-017339AE00E7@piuha.net> <4F33EAF2-FC26-4689-80A6-43FF37D09EB9@mnot.net> <06BB5F2B-760F-4EC1-B887-D67773861064@cooperw.in> <A155BE57-CC0F-4DF3-A83F-3356C442D895@mnot.net> <F9DD9188-73F6-4F9F-948E-4E590DC6BF97@cooperw.in>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/_T85RpA-FnUu3myThBRkoRijl3E>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-and-github] Draft: requirements for third-party tools
X-BeenThere: ietf-and-github@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of using GitHub in IETF activities, particularly for Working Groups" <ietf-and-github.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-and-github>, <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-and-github/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-and-github@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github>, <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 01:09:31 -0000

> On 22 Mar 2017, at 8:02 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 4:36 am, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Couple of thoughts on this doc:
>>> 
>>> 2.2: People can’t be prevented from covering the fees for everyone to use a tool if they want to do that, but it seems like there is some danger there of a WG becoming too reliant on paid-for features and having the person who paid change jobs or roles or otherwise decide to stop paying before the work is done. Might just be something to note as folks consider this.
>> 
>> Agreed; I think it makes sense to add a cautionary note here.
>> 
>> 
>>> 2.7: I’d like to see the possibility of secretariat access included here for commonly-used tools.
>> 
>> So, what would the purpose of that be? I'd be concerned if they started changing repo settings, doing checkins or adding people to the organisation.
> 
> It would be for the same reason that they have administrative access to the datatracker. If adding/removing responsible people becomes a routine part of the transition process when we have changes in personnel, it takes the load off of ADs and chairs if they just have to click one button in the datatracker and all of the associated permissions/roles get changed correctly by the secretariat.

How about something like: "When third party tools become so commonly used that the IETF defines best practices for their use, those guidelines SHOULD define what the Secretariat's role is in their use."

?

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/