[Ietf-and-github] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-06: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 12 March 2020 06:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration@ietf.org, git-chairs@ietf.org, ietf-and-github@ietf.org, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>, caw@heapingbits.net
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <158399631853.19777.5084686659454584666@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 23:58:38 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/r1UhRN7umTsrL5lUf0VGdvFrnWU>
Subject: [Ietf-and-github] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-06: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-06: No Objection

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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not quite sure this needs to be published (in terms of archival
value), but don't feel strongly enough to post an Abstain position.

Section 1

   conventions proposed here: that is fine.  The goal of the proposals
   in this document is not to require uniformity in current practice,
   but to help working groups get started using GitHub in a uniform way
   if desired.

It seems like perhaps the uniformity is not the key part (since we've
disclaimed total uniformity and endorsed WG sovreignity), but rather
that the set of practices has been reviewed and validated already.

Section 2

Should we give commit hashes for the listed examples of automation so as
to provide a stable reference?

Section 2.4

So those ADs at time of closing are privileged and retain access
indefinitely?

Section 3.1

[I mentioned CONTRIBUTING vs. CONTRIBUTING.md on the other doc, and
cross-document consistency is good.]

[Ietf-and-github] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection o… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker