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 5:23 PM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > On 12 Mar 2020, at 10:05 am, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, at 06:58, Warren Kumari wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > I should read all the thread before replying...
> >
> > https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github/pull/46 makes this change.
>
> I have some sympathy for Warren's concerns (regardless of the process
> intricacies).
>
> I didn't review this document closely in LC because my recollection when
> we started the group, there were numerous reassurances that it was advisory
> only, not requiring things from groups that didn't want to opt into these
> processes. The charter seems to support this view (note "that choose to
> adopt the *practices*", not "Github"):
>
> """
> The GitHub Integration and Tooling (GIT) working group will select a set
> of such practices and document policies that support those practices. The
> policies will each detail how work is conducted by working groups that opt
> to follow the work practice. The goal is to provide both process and
> tooling support for working groups that choose to adopt the practices.
>
> ....
>
> Whether working groups choose to use GitHub or the documented policies to
> support their work will remain entirely at their discretion.
> """
>
> So this change doesn't go far enough; it needs to say something like:
>
> >  This document describes a set of practices that Working Groups using
> GitHub can choose to adopt.
>
> Changing the document to Informational would also make me feel _much_
> better about it.
>

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.

-Ekr


> With apologies for the late feedback, a few more notes FWIW:
>
> * "Chairs MUST involve Area Directors in any decision to use GitHub for
> anything more than managing drafts."  This seems onerous; does it mean that
> I need to consult with the AD to host some tests (e.g., <
> https://github.com/httpwg/structured-header-tests>)t;), a repository for a
> wiki (e.g., <https://github.com/httpwg/wiki/wiki>), working group
> administrivia (<https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials>), or a
> translation (<https://github.com/quicwg/zh-translations>)?
>
> * "Maintaining multiple documents in the same repository can add overhead
> that negatively affects individual documents.  For instance, issues might
> require additional markings to identify the document that they affect.
> Also, because editors all have write access to the repository, managing the
> set of people with write access to a larger repository is more difficult
> (Section 3.3)."  This is well-worn territory, but there are also costs
> associated with having many repositories -- both in terms of WG chair load,
> and in terms of potential errors (as we're discovering in QUIC).
>
> * "Issues that have reached a resolution that has Working Group consensus
> MUST NOT be reopened unless new information is presented."  This seems to
> be pre-emptively establishing both the status of Github issues in the IETF
> process, and the semantics of their state.
>
> * "Editors SHOULD create a new Internet-Draft submission two weeks prior
> to every session..."  How is this requirement specific to Github?
>
> * Generally, there are a lot of RFC2119 terms that seem advisory, not
> normative. Are they all well-considered? To give one example: "Editors
> SHOULD make pull requests for all substantial changes rather than
> committing directly to the "master" branch of the repository." What does it
> mean to violate that SHOULD?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-and-github mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-and-github mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>