Re: [SCITT] Architecture Doc Reviews

[Dick Brooks <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Henk.

I'll defer to the github experts to make any changes, to avoid from messing anything up. I can post issues for anything I want to raise.

Thanks,

Dick Brooks
  
Active Member of the CISA Critical Manufacturing Sector, 
Sector Coordinating Council – A Public-Private Partnership

Never trust software, always verify and report! ™
http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com
Email: [e-mail]
Tel: [phone]

-----Original Message-----
From: Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 5:40 PM
To: [e-mail]; 'Steve Lasker' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [SCITT] Architecture Doc Reviews

Hi Dick,

let me try to give a bit more context.

These are two separate organizations. Let me highlight why that happens.

When you want to form a Working Group, but are not a Working Group yet, it is useful to flock at one place. Like... birds of a feather tend to flock together.

That place is https://github.com/ietf-scitt

After you successfully chartered and there is a Working Group, this kicks in:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8875#name-creation-of-github-
> organiza

So, a new github organization is created under supervision of the IETF secretary.

That place is https://github.com/ietf-wg-scitt

In theory, there is also an option to do this:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8875#name-migration-of-an-exi
> sting-or

But this second option comes with a significant drawback: consensus bias. In essence, if the maintainers of the github org (typically the chairs and some assigned helpers) decide to put something into a WG org that is not adopted yet (individual drafts) at least two unintended things can happen:

1.) these individual drafts benefit from more visibility than other individual drafts not accepted into the github org yet (which is a cause for bias for upcoming adoption calls) or

2.) individual drafts in the WG org are mistaken for adopted drafts (which is cause for confusion).

Thus, keeping related but individual drafts in a separate org and only adopted drafts in the WG org is intended to create a clear demarcation line that is only crossed after a successful call for adoption.

Alas, this only works well when people responsible for a repo in the non-WG org (like me) do not forget to archive these old repos as soon as an individual draft was adopted (like I did).


Viele Grüße,

Henk



On 16.02.23 22:50, Dick Brooks wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> I’m a little confused. How do these document relate, or not?
> 
> Are alternative options?
> 
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture
> <https://github.com/ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture>
> 
> https://ietf-scitt.github.io/draft-birkholz-scitt-architecture/draft-b
> irkholz-scitt-architecture.html 
> <https://ietf-scitt.github.io/draft-birkholz-scitt-architecture/draft-
> birkholz-scitt-architecture.html>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dick Brooks
> 
> /Active Member of the CISA Critical Manufacturing Sector, /
> 
> /Sector Coordinating Council – A Public-Private Partnership/
> 
> */Never trust software, always verify and report! 
> <https://reliableenergyanalytics.com/products>/*™
> 
> http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com
> <http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com/>
> 
> Email: [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> Tel: [phone]
> 
> *From:*SCITT <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Steve Lasker
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 16, 2023 4:45 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [SCITT] Architecture Doc Reviews
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> As the use cases are stabilizing, we’d like to make progress on the 
> architecture document 
> <https://github.com/ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture>.
> 
> The proposal is to make this weekly, recognizing it may overlap with 
> the scitt-community call, which we can adjust based on the weekly agenda.
> 
> Please vote on the day/time, not specific to the date: 
> https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/dw0q2lRe
> <https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/dw0q2lRe>
> 
>