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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Ack; thanks.

b

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:56 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I thought Alissa said that they want to update but not before after the IETF-107 week…
>
>
>
> > On 20. Mar 2020, at 15:56, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Where are we on this DISCUSS?
> >
> > Barry
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:49 AM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> See inline.
> >>
> >>> On 11. Mar 2020, at 21:36, Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Catching up on the rest of Mirja's comments (not already discussed on this thread)
> >>>
> >>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> 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?
> >>>
> >>> We will change "API" to "ability in the Datatracker”.
> >>
> >> I’m still not sure what exactly is needed here? Can you maybe explain what the idea is?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Some chairs have indicated it is desirable, so the WG thought it should be possible.
> >>
> >> Yes, I think this is a discussion for the other git draft.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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...
> >>>
> >>> Document authors can tell the WG chairs that they intend to create a new WG draft. If that happens, the WG chair creates the repo with either the intended draft name or something semantically relevant, and tells the document authors before they turn in the -00. (I think this has already happened in some WGs…)
> >>
> >> That's fine. But the cited text talks about a datatracker interface for that. Not sure if that is the right approach.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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?
> >>>
> >>> This is currently true for chairs for their WGs, but not for authors in their document page.
> >>
> >> It was not clear to me that this was intended on the document level. I think that should be clarified. How would that look like? Authors can add a GitHub repo name or just any URL? Not sure if authors should do that or only chairs on a per-document basis; might be different for individual drafts and wg documents.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Mirja
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> --Paul Hoffman
> >>
> >
> >
>