Re: [GNAP] GNAP Editors' Use of GitHub Issues

Hi there,

One of the potential problems we'd like to avoid is to have an ever growing
list of open issues that we never close.

The idea of having milestones (e.g. IETF110) might be a complementary way
of managing priorities.

Editors will revert back to the list after the US vacation days.

Cheers,
Fabien

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 1:26 AM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
wrote:

> i agree - drop postponed - if you can't say till when, then close. Issues
> can always be added by anyone at anytime.
> Peace ..tom
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 10:27 AM Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Commenting on the proposed process (chair hat off):
>>
>>
>>
>> I think “postponed” issues should not be closed. Once something is
>> closed, we should be reasonably confident that it is resolved for good.
>> People rarely search through closed issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> Moreover, IMO the label “postponed” is not actionable. Instead, I suggest
>> to mark such issues with future milestones, e.g. “IETF110”, meaning that at
>> this time we will review the issue. Otherwise, the “postponed” issues will
>> probably suffer the destiny of all “low priority” issues – they will be
>> ignored for months and eventually closed en masse. See [1] for GitHub
>> milestones.
>>
>>
>>
>> Otherwise I am fine with the rest of the process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>                 Yaron
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/managing-your-work-on-github/about-milestones
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *TXAuth <txauth-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Aaron Parecki <
>> aaron@parecki.com>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 18:37
>> *To: *GNAP Mailing List <txauth@ietf.org>
>> *Subject: *[GNAP] GNAP Editors' Use of GitHub Issues
>>
>>
>>
>> The editors met yesterday to discuss the issues that were pulled out of
>> the previous draft text and document a process for how to resolve these and
>> future issues. We would like to explain how we plan on using labels on
>> GitHub issues to keep track of discussions and keep things moving.
>>
>> When there are substantive issues or pull requests, the editors will
>> avoid merging or closing those outright, and instead mark them as
>> "pending", so that these can be brought to the attention of the larger
>> group. If no additional discussion happens on these, the merge or close
>> action will be taken in 7 days. Note for this first round we are setting
>> the deadline for the issues below as Dec 11th due to the US holiday and the
>> fact that this is the first time using this process.
>>
>> "Pending Merge"
>> When specific text is proposed in a PR (by anyone, not limited to the
>> editors), and the editors believe this text reflects the consensus of the
>> working group, this marks that the PR will be merged in 7 days unless there
>> is a clear alternative proposal accepted by the working group.
>>
>> "Pending Close"
>> When the editors believe an issue no longer needs discussion, we'll mark
>> it "Pending Close". The issue will be closed in 7 days unless someone
>> brings new information to the discussion. This tag is not applied to issues
>> that will be closed by a specific pull request.
>>
>> There are two additional labels we will use to flag issues to the group.
>>
>> "Needs Text"
>> The editors suggest this issue needs additional text in the spec to
>> clarify why this section is needed and under what circumstances. Without a
>> concrete proposal of text to be included in the spec, this section will be
>> removed in a future update.
>>
>> "Postponed"
>> This issue can be reconsidered in the future with a more concrete
>> discussion but is not targeted for immediate concrete changes to the spec
>> text. When used on its own, this label does not indicate that an issue is
>> targeted to be closed. An issue may also be marked "Pending Close", and
>> this is used so that we can distinguish closed issues between discussions
>> that have concluded or things that we may want to revisit in the future.
>> Remember that closed issues are not deleted and their contents are still
>> findable and readable, and that new issues can reference closed issues.
>>
>> With these labels in mind, here are the list of issues and their statuses
>> we were able to discuss on our last editor's call. The action on these
>> pending issues will be taken on Dec 11th to give the group enough time to
>> review this list. For this first round, many of the issues are marked
>> "Pending Close" as we're looking for low hanging fruit to prune the list of
>> issues down. In the future, you can expect to see more "Pending Merge"
>> issues as we're bringing proposed text to review by the WG.
>>
>> Postponed:
>>
>> * Generic claim extension mechanism
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/131
>>
>> Pending Merge:
>>
>> * Make access token mandatory for continuation API calls
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/pull/129
>>
>> Postponed and Pending Close:
>>
>> * Fetchable Keys
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/47
>> * Including OpenID Connect Claims
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/64
>> * Application communication with back-end
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/82
>> * Additional post-interaction protocols
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/83
>>
>> Pending Close:
>>
>> * HTTP PUT vs POST for rotating access tokens
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/100
>> * Use of hash with unique callback URL
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/84
>> * Interaction considerations
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/81
>> * Expanding dynamic reference handles
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/76
>> * Post interaction callback nonce
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/73
>> * Unique callback URIs
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/55
>> * Instance identifier
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/46
>> * Requesting resources by reference
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/36
>> * Mapping resource references
>> ** https://github.com/ietf-wg-gnap/gnap-core-protocol/issues/35
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Aaron Parecki
>>
>> https://aaronparecki.com
>>
>>
>>
>> -- TXAuth mailing list TXAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>> --
>> TXAuth mailing list
>> TXAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>>
> --
> TXAuth mailing list
> TXAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth
>