IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ietf-and-github] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 12 March 2020 01:40 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 77A353A107C for <ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.079
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com
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 GZjnwh-WBALG for <ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A8F63A1093 for <ietf-and-github@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.121.48] (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 02C1eBGL076237 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:40:12 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1583977213; bh=czZtVwEdjFjZveXwLDubNlRqYoC7dUo83sRof/G0TFw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=jZvMQ51paxlewqtu3bW4NQ35o0np/6KraN4yPF0Bze/U+ZCMk9lDxXuaM0auytcNW 757oilYnsvv0XRBBaBrsTQ7CZB+SPudExA73ngnKiae1WZ4qEPAMSipVy+iPddxw6K queWKSMR8xfBpHd2f4GuqkOmw6U4hstgNL0cuRvE=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be [172.17.121.48]
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, ietf-and-github@ietf.org
Cc: abr@nostrum.com
References: <158397412236.19821.1273610782724376897@ietfa.amsl.com> <1cb8d41d-268b-47bb-bcd6-911786d20191@www.fastmail.com> <443bf4f4-3a70-4be4-8012-cf0acc362776@www.fastmail.com> <41e0bcff-42dc-5e79-18b2-98b790ded742@nostrum.com> <77effcfa-c1ce-461f-9b62-2160410ae585@www.fastmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <e0023dd0-1f45-0cbd-56a7-29099263028c@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:40:05 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <77effcfa-c1ce-461f-9b62-2160410ae585@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/cmiA0pOVeLbgHhK-XhhlgzWFsPY>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-and-github] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ietf-and-github@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:40:16 -0000

On 3/11/2020 8:35 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> The advice was intended to be about Working Groups doing official business in private.  Do you think that the new language is wrong in principle, or is it that I've just made a hash of the transcription of the concept?


Private to whom? If you're talking about authors setting up repositories 
that only the author or authors can get to, I think the guidance is off. 
Such behavior should be considered neutral to good, as the alternative 
is virtually guaranteed to be not using an SCM at all.

If you're talking about a WG repository that is private but that can be 
accessed by some non-author subset of a working group, then I agree 
that's a problem.

If that's in line with the discussion in the working group, then I think 
it's possible to write language that distinguishes between these two cases.

/a

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email