IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ietf-and-github] [Ext] New draft, and proposal for BoF at IETF 103

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Sat, 22 September 2018 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA934128CFD for <ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zs0ll2nNGEoQ for <ietf-and-github@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E3BE12426A for <ietf-and-github@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:22:05 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:22:05 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-and-github@ietf.org" <ietf-and-github@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [Ietf-and-github] New draft, and proposal for BoF at IETF 103
Thread-Index: AQHUUrHsOpMX3gmEgkiCZuHwbkBGOg==
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 20:22:03 +0000
Message-ID: <B46D8D9D-D9C4-4EF4-BC13-9C61012EC047@icann.org>
References: <5FED3790-8276-431F-85F1-6E42C57BA2F0@icann.org> <15767A94-7E61-4A91-8DB3-719BB55C0ABC@cooperw.in> <1B6523C5-5A56-4592-9545-F847C4C5F509@eggert.org> <A10B00CC-161A-49FD-B549-359B14DA3DF9@cooperw.in> <CABkgnnU27jdQFqKpcMat7tAv=23M_LokgFLzFdeCFCPWR9SKkA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnU27jdQFqKpcMat7tAv=23M_LokgFLzFdeCFCPWR9SKkA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_78463C83-9869-4C35-9FCA-F035780176F0"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/xBbClgG0ulmj1eRocfNwSz7V8oQ>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-and-github] [Ext] New draft, and proposal for BoF at IETF 103
X-BeenThere: ietf-and-github@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of using GitHub in IETF activities, particularly for Working Groups" <ietf-and-github.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-and-github>, <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-and-github/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-and-github@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github>, <mailto:ietf-and-github-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 20:22:09 -0000

On Sep 22, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:12 AM Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> no offense, but there isn't really anything non-obvious in draft-cooper-wugh-github-wg-configuration. IMO draft-thomson-github-bcp-00 is quite a bit more practically useful. Is that also in scope for discussion?
>> 
>> I think it certainly could be, especially if people think the outcome would be different from the last BoF discussion of it.
> 
> FWIW, I'm happy to work with Alissa and Paul (or anyone else) to get
> that doc in better shape if people believe that to be the right
> answer.  I have a -01 that includes a bunch of feedback already, but I
> didn't get around to pushing it.
> 
> When I talked to Alissa about this draft, I got the impression that
> the idea was to go for something less comprehensive, which would be
> more incremental in nature.  In terms of steps, these are good steps,
> but I take Lars' point here: as a community, we're already well past
> those baby steps and we might want to codify some more of the process.
> 
> I'm happy to join a discussion in Bangkok about this.  I think that
> we've only really talked about the benefits/processes a few times in
> the past.  If the intent here is to make the processes more concrete
> and to gain some amount of official support for those processes, that
> is worth discussing.
> 
> (BTW, I'm having similar discussions about congealing work practices
> in my day job.  Supporting diverse work practices can be expensive,
> and there is always some tension between wanting to find more
> efficiency through supporting fewer options and supporting the highly
> efficient and specialized practices that individuals or groups might
> have developed over time.  It's a fun discussion.)

If the BoF gets approved and scheduled for a 1.5 hour slot, we should have time to also have a discussion of current practices and their effects on WG processes.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email