Re: [SCITT] Architecture Doc Reviews

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

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-existing-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-birkholz-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>
> 
>