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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

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