Re: Please comment on your use of trac

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Barbara

> On 27/02/2021, at 6:50 AM, STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> I’m in the process of drafting the RFP for this work and I want to check a few
>> things base on your replies:
>> 
>> 1.  It sounds as it everyone is comfortable with a migration to a new wiki system
>> 
>> 2.  A few WGs - EMAILCORE, DMARC and TSVWG are using trac for issue
>> tracking and need migrating to a new issue tracker.  Would you be happy if that
>> was GitHub? (DMARC has already indicated this is acceptable).
>> 
>> 3.  Many more WGs used to use trac for issue tracking but no longer do.  We
>> need to find a way to archive these for the historical record, but I want to check
>> you would be happy if that was just an export to a text file that could then be a
>> wiki page rather than moving them to a new issue tracking system?
> 
> I'm fine with this, but want to note the private nomcom2020 wiki should be archived in a protected place and not be publicly accessible. It might not be great to have minutes of NomCom deliberations out there for all to see. So, just a request to take care with the archiving. Feel free to consult with me when this is done (I see RFC8713 says the impacted NomCom gets to vote on how to implement an archive). Also, NomCom archives are only required to last for the duration of the NomCom term. So it would be good to be able to delete this archive in the future. Victor may have thoughts on whether he'd like nomcom2019 archived at all, since its term is over. I also see there are nomcom2017 and nomcom2018 wikis. Someone should think about these, too. - Barbara

Noted - I will include a specific section on exiting and future NomCom wikis and have the left few NomCom chairs check that.

Jay

> 
>> 4.  The following features for a new wiki system have been recommended:
>> 
>> 	* document names resolve to links to the documents without having to
>> require explicit URLs.
>> 	* I would like a markdown based wiki system.
>> 
>> 5.  We are currently considering moving to a *single* wiki instead of multiple
>> different instances of the same wiki.  The means the following features are
>> needed to support the various ways that WGs and other groups use their wikis:
>> 
>> 	• support of OIDC for authentication with Datatracker
>> 	• permissions system (which will be limited to roles that Datatracker
>> know about)
>> 
>> (so far the product that seems to meet these requirements the best is Wiki.js)
>> 
>> Any comments, or any more to add?
>> 
>> Jay
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4/02/2021, at 5:17 AM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> We currently have instances of trac configured for each working group. Only
>> some are being used.
>>> 
>>> If your group is using trac, are you using anything essentially trac-specific that
>> you find important?
>>> 
>>> Would you be ok migrating (with help) to a different wiki system and a
>> different issue tracking system?
>>> 
>>> The trac project itself is lagging with Python development - stable still only
>> runs on Python 2.7 and while there appears to be work towards Python 3, it is
>> not yet functional, and is not progressing quickly. We are working around it by
>> encapsulating it in docker instances running 2.7.
>>> 
>>> I've had several people suggest we should stop supporting it, and I'd like to
>> know if that would be a particular hardship for any group.
>>> 
>>> RjS
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Jay Daley
>> IETF Executive Director
>> [e-mail]
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]