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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 3/11/2020 8:19 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> Section 3.2:
>>     Repositories for private documents MAY
>>     be kept private, but only where there is a specific reason for doing
>>     so.
>>
>> This seems really odd, completely undetectable/unenforceable, and actually
>> harmful. It is common practice for editors to just keep their source local and
>> only submit the output of such source to the i-d repository; and that’s just
>> fine. This seems to say that such users are effectively forbidden to have their
>> source equally private but also effectively backed-up and revision-controlled
>> by one specific online service. It seems strictly better to allow and even
>> encourage this, to prevent a loss of data.
> I might revise this statement.  As you say, it's meaningless.  But the
> admonition about operating in secret is probably worth retaining.  How
> about:https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github/pull/49


Thanks. The removal of normative language is an improvement, but the 
guidance appears to be the same. I think there's a difference of 
perception here. I agree that an open repository is better than a 
private one; but I also think that a private repository is strictly 
better than not using an SCM at all, and I'm more concerned about the 
implications of this language on the second point than the first.

/a