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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:39 PM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On 12 Mar 2020, at 11:27 am, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Martin here: the point of having this go through a WG and
> consensus is that we think that if you are using Github this is a good set
> of practices and that we recommend them in that case. So while it's at
> their discretion that doesn't mean we don't have an opinion.
>
> Sure. But the document doesn't say it's at their discretion; it says that
> it's Best Current Practice for any WG that uses GitHub, and asserts a lot
> of MUSTs about them. The charter language is very specific for a reason;
> this was discussed in depth, and there were multiple assurances that WGs
> would "opt in" to this document.
>

You seem to be complaining about two separate things:

1. That it says it's Best Current Practice
2. That it's not sufficiently clear it's optional.

I think that (2) is implicit in the following text:

   The main purpose of this document is providing guidelines for how
   Working Groups might integrate the capabilities provided by GitHub
   into their processes for developing Internet-Drafts.

However, I wouldn't object to making it clearer. Perhaps: "The choice
of whether to use Github or whether to adopt these practices if they
do is at the discretion of the WG". However, I would be sad to see us
back off the claim that it's best current practice, because, as I
said, that's the point of having a WG.

-Ekr





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