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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

FYI, the status of this document was changed to informational.

Alissa


> On Mar 11, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: 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-using-github/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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."
> 
> My reading of the mailing list is that the current RFC Editor note (in which
> appending the document to BCP 25 is requested) was added only after the topic
> was brought up in the Genart LC review.  [Did I miss the discussion?]
> 
> 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.
> 
> Not expecting this document to be part of BCP 25, or having an explicit
> discussion with the community about it, would lead me to clear my DISCUSS.
> 
> ====
> [Non blocking comment.  I'm including it here because it is related to the
> status of the document.]
> 
> This document would be very good Informational document.
> 
> I am not a regular GitHub user (and none of the WGs I'm responsible for use it
> as part of their process), but I have no reason to doubt that the text
> represents what is believed to be the best way to use GitHub within the IETF
> process.  However, the designation as a BCP can create confusion.  [Again, this
> is a non-blocking comment.]
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> (0) I share Warren's concerns.
> 
> (1) The datatracker should list draft-thomson-git-using-github as being
> replaced by this document.
> 
> (2) It would be nice to have a short terminology section; I assume many people
> reading this document will not already be GitHub-savy, so push, pull, commits,
> may not be familiar to them.  Alternatively, an Informational pointer to a
> tutorial would also be ok.
> 
> (3) Personally, I don't have an issue with the use of GitHub, but some of the
> statements in the Introduction sound like marketing blurbs, for example:
> 
> - "Use of this service has been found to reduce the time that Working Groups
>   need to produce documents and to improve the quality of the final result."
> 
> - "...encourage contributions from a larger set of contributors."
> 
> - "Using GitHub can also broaden the community of contributors for a
>   specification."
> 
> (4) [nit] s/This is problematic for contributors who do not track discussion
> closely./This is problematic for contributors who do not track discussions
> closely.
> 
> (5) [major]  §5.3: "Working Group chairs SHOULD confirm that the Working Group
> has consensus to adopt any process."  When would the chairs not confirm
> consensus to adopt a process?  IOW, why is this not a MUST?
> 
> Note that §3 says this:
> 
>   Working Group Chairs are responsible for determining how to best
>   accomplish the charter objectives in an open and transparent fashion.
>   The Working Group Chairs are responsible for determining if there is
>   interest in using GitHub and making a consensus call to determine if
>   the proposed policy and use is acceptable.
> 
> Even though this text doesn't use rfc2119 keywords, my impression of the intent
> is that it is required for the chairs to make the consensus call.  IOW, I think
> that this text and the one above (from §5.3) are in conflict.
> 
> (6) §5.3.2:
> 
>   Gaining Working Group consensus about the resolution of issues can be
>   done in the abstract, with editors being permitted to capture the
>   outcome of discussions as they see fit.
> 
> This sentence doesn't sound right to me: "consensus...can be done in the
> abstract, with editors being permitted to capture the outcome...as they see
> fit".  That last part doesn't sound right: Chairs call consensus.  Maybe I'm
> misinterpreting...
> 
> (7) [major]. Why is draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration listed as a
> Normative Reference?  I don't think that dependency is needed.
> 
> 
>