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

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 10 March 2020 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 E9A233A1294; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 05:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=05XgTdZw; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=2lgIRqHQ
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 hsgV6OBlaF6G; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 05:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03AB53A1288; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 05:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F26E996; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 08:55:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 08:55:10 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=C zd6ifNm97TFKG6mxISNttm1+/vHb3Gx3mnXCYixcQc=; b=05XgTdZwsb98XKDth dp2EMLyZhPaasvowz9QpL8FHx2MtH6UyYPl7Dp+D9MVNMeM/rJ0RQxCt8HpupVTd sIRf2vxONsGLDusvM1wsXuwFDZoX80xiEfdQv8Oh5T01ZL8kChL3n+CyR/BS/h5n pY/KpMSiCDNslzuKxS9Yl//GbhHswsPjq2B/TwInD2SO77/5X0eLHRWKRlAJaKp1 dSo7Bsojep6FpETKYck9MnFXYpd/zMNruNel3hAsyIkMHE74Nm5GL30QOWlW9sWs tQUUgRl/iQW383rQylrzzlrGGqDE9KMmEH8aUZx/wOa3FBq68IYCZoqZ6WS2idMs IgVSA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Czd6ifNm97TFKG6mxISNttm1+/vHb3Gx3mnXCYixc Qc=; b=2lgIRqHQAZIA42f6Uo+I4qTgmY43T1AIsq/afm3o0x2tW81oek09qws8U q9gHRFdnhAEFIVcX/HKJH/fvWUFYFt4ZmcWBokC9DdE6FfMbBtSb9FJliw/VXjMq Q84d45MlAf6dgIaQBc8VAjuVVluZ6XVEiDZxJUhAKay4/cJNkDW15KVuByEQGxHf 1zebo4wIKiNRrIkjP1Uvw5EsBzWWNLwnUhZEZe3L1bDZMGVjltoJy06WWtfMDmMm NlCIMiwFpj0mCF4dCMMPFdb9kEEp/HC6264r9AxdTd6om9TEVOoli1z4hhTMa7TW LAtWRms3VMnx4ZTwhEVDqPgrNfDRQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:LY5nXm48T7gFRXt-ETsBj9FZel5bfCeWJfx9uGSoMIU_ECdXRv0Bzw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedruddvtddggeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqh hmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhsrgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegt ohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfe drfeekrdduudejrdeludenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgr ihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhn
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:LY5nXun0sBWwficyU3NRFBtn52lpuWpz5oZuIeaK4902Y_qv-43Kwg> <xmx:LY5nXnu-GqVZl8qT6gi-1mHNlcYIRXeQrNXYqD5SjspbDgPWfIsy6A> <xmx:LY5nXsRqh1BqNchvXbQcwVzcaAaf3pNaPEdNsrF6ZI5pthGS4Vh5hg> <xmx:LY5nXtUpMVigML6iGm1M3hlu7bo1N0ut_mJzEc_hFsmKEdU9rfoJCQ>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.91]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B7FF73061363; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 08:55:08 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <FB1F57E6-759D-49FB-A9B1-17AC1909EE01@kuehlewind.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 08:55:07 -0400
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, git-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-and-github@ietf.org, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>, draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C91CD306-ABC0-49F3-849A-1AF8A7524947@cooperw.in>
References: <158383623742.15390.14960725517486025456@ietfa.amsl.com> <BD37D562-1DAB-49B5-B7B6-A9A041BA3E45@cooperw.in> <FB1F57E6-759D-49FB-A9B1-17AC1909EE01@kuehlewind.net>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/mhRmypBpCCAbCtYcdkJNy51kihc>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-and-github] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-06: (with DISCUSS and 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: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:55:13 -0000


> On Mar 10, 2020, at 8:51 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> 
> 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? 

Yes, sorry for not catching that. I think we can just remove this.

> 
> 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…?

Yep, the tools team is already working on this and the secretariat is aware.

Thanks,
Alissa

> 
> 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 <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Mirja,
>> 
>>> On Mar 10, 2020, at 6:30 AM, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 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?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>