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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:41 PM Salz, Rich
<rsalz=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >    Personally I would rather see this document switch to informational and move forward with publication. I don’t think the label “BCP” makes much of a difference, the point is just to document practices to make it easier for IETF WGs to get their work done. I would be curious what the WG thinks.
>
> We do think this is the best ways to do things, but if the BCP label has people tied up in knots, it's better to publish than delay and be right.  I can live with informational.

Thank you -- I would even be OK with just changing to Abstract to be:
"This document describes best practices for Working Groups that choose
to use GitHub for their work."
and leave it as BCP.

Would that work better for everyone? It would be enough for me to no
longer feel that this is saying that WGs using GitHub is a BCP, but
rather that if a WG decided to use GitHub, this is the best way to do
so (I'm still not sure that this really is the best way, but that's
just my opinion, and I'm OK being in the rough)

W



>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-and-github mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf