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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

All of those changes look much better, thanks.

Regarding the multiple documents issue -- yes, it was indeed discussed. I don't feel strongly about changing the language, unless this document is seen as binding on all WGs that use Github (see rest of discussion).

Cheers,


> On 12 Mar 2020, at 11:44 am, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Any input, even late input, is better than nothing.  I appreciate you spending the time.
> 
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, at 11:23, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> * "Chairs MUST involve Area Directors in any decision to use GitHub for 
>> anything more than managing drafts."  This seems onerous; does it mean 
>> that I need to consult with the AD to host some tests (e.g., 
>> <https://github.com/httpwg/structured-header-tests>), a repository for 
>> a wiki (e.g., <https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki>), working group 
>> administrivia (<https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials>), or a 
>> translation (<https://github.com/quicwg/zh-translations>)?
> 
> Yes, this was not considered in the original drafting.  There is a proposed revision in https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github/commit/e74ba457de2f0843a42c1214bec0033f559f187a
> 
>> * "Maintaining multiple documents in the same repository can add 
>> overhead that negatively affects individual documents.  For instance, 
>> issues might require additional markings to identify the document that 
>> they affect.  Also, because editors all have write access to the 
>> repository, managing the set of people with write access to a larger 
>> repository is more difficult (Section 3.3)."  This is well-worn 
>> territory, but there are also costs associated with having many 
>> repositories -- both in terms of WG chair load, and in terms of 
>> potential errors (as we're discovering in QUIC).
> 
> I believe that encouraging the use of separate repos is the consensus outcome of working group discussions.  You were involved.  Suggestions for different wordings are always welcome, of course.
> 
>> * "Issues that have reached a resolution that has Working Group 
>> consensus MUST NOT be reopened unless new information is presented."  
>> This seems to be pre-emptively establishing both the status of Github 
>> issues in the IETF process, and the semantics of their state. 
> 
> There is a proposed revision in https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github/commit/b872e534db4c885cd3cbfaac64fff7d06d41c5d4 (though Chris later improved the text further, see the PR: https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github/pull/43 for more)
> 
>> * "Editors SHOULD create a new Internet-Draft submission two weeks 
>> prior to every session..."  How is this requirement specific to Github?
> 
> It's a poor restatement of the (lowercase) recommendation that was cited.  I have reworded here: https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github/pull/48
> 
>> * Generally, there are a lot of RFC2119 terms that seem advisory, not 
>> normative. Are they all well-considered? To give one example: "Editors 
>> SHOULD make pull requests for all substantial changes rather than 
>> committing directly to the "master" branch of the repository." What 
>> does it mean to violate that SHOULD?
> 
> A lot of these have been removed in response to reviews.  Including that example in response to Mirja's review: https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github/pull/45

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