Re: [Ietf-and-github] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa,

This is not what the document says here (and also in the abstract):

"   The document is meant to spur discussion in the IETF community.  If
   there proves to be rough consensus in the community in support of the
   proposals in this document, the functional requirements would need to
   be discussed with the IETF Tools Team and the IETF Secretariat, who
   would need to support various pieces of what is proposed herein.”

Or should this have been removed? 

Is the intention to let the secretariat provide these function on publication? If so, we should probably request changes to the tool team before publication…?

Maybe it is more appropriate to not discuss the tooling issue and concrete datatracker change in the RFC-to-be but only document the process as to be performed by the chairs and secretariat?

Mirja



> On 10. Mar 2020, at 13:34, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> 
>> On Mar 10, 2020, at 6:30 AM, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-06: Discuss
>> 
>> 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-github-wg-configuration/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> To be honest I don't fully understand the point of this document. It seem like
>> this document is supposed to be the basis for more discussion, however, I
>> thought that's what we have the wg for. So when and how do we come to a final
>> decision if we want to implement the proposed changes?
> 
> This document specifies the administrative processes and conventions we will use. Further discussion of the changes (other than minor tweaks here and there) is not expected.
> 
> Best,
> Alissa 
> 
>> And what would we do in
>> that case - take this document and republish? Why can't we make the decision
>> first and then publish something? In short, I think it would be important that
>> the document also describes what the next steps are and the triggers to move on!
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Other questions/comments:
>> 
>> 1) Sec 2.3:
>> "There should likely be an API to specify that there were personnel changes."
>> Inline with the comment in the shepherd write-up, I find this sentence really
>> unclear. I'm not even sure where the API should be (datatracker or GitHub) and
>> what is should do?
>> 
>> 2) Sec 2.5:
>> "Creating a new repository for an individual draft"
>> This section indicated that also individual drafts could be maintained within
>> the official wg organization. I'm not sure if that is practical or desirable:
>> Which individual docs should the chairs allow repos for and which not? There
>> can be quite a lot of draft in some groups.
>> 
>> 3) Also sec 2.5:
>> "   As an incremental step, this document proposes that there be a
>>  facility in the Datatracker interface to allow an administrator of an
>>  ietf-wg-<wgname> organization to request the creation of a new
>>  repository within that organization for a single document."
>> For -00 version you usually want to have a repo before you submit it to the
>> datatracker. So a button on the datatracker page of the draft does not seems
>> too useful...
>> 
>> 4) Sec 2.6:
>> "At the time of this writing this feature was under development."
>> Wasn't there always/for a long time already a feature where you can add link to
>> external pages?
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>