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

[Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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? 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?