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

[Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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.