Working Group GitHub Administration
draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration-07

I support Mirja Kühlewind DISCUSS position and agree with the Alvaro’s Retana’s comment

** Section 3.  It seems like a stronger statement should be: 
s/It would be good for working group GitHub content to also be backed up and publicly archived/Working group GitHub content needs to be backed up and publicly archived/

** Section 4.  The text would benefit from noting that the risk of centralization is recognized, but mitigated by the plan described in Section 3.2.

**********************************************************************
* Note, that I am conducting an experiment when people aspiring to be*
* Area Directors get exposed to AD work ("AD shadowing experiment"). *
* As a part of this experiment they get to review documents on IESG  *
* telechats according to IESG Discuss criteria document and their    *
* comments get relayed pretty much verbatim to relevant editors/WGs. *
* As an AD I retain responsibility in defending their position when  *
* I agree with it.                                                   *
* Recipients of these reviews are encouraged to reply to me directly * 
* about perceived successes or failures of this experiment.          *
**********************************************************************

The following comments were provided by Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>.

Francesca would have balloted *No Objections* on this document. She wrote:

Comment:

This draft is informational, but does put up requirements on IETF Secretariat and tools team in order for readers to follow its possible use (develop certain features, add certain tasks to IETF Secretariat). I see this draft as both a wish list (valid at this point in time) and a guideline. If it would contain only the possible guideline, I would understand that publishing it would have value, but as it is I am not sure: what does publishing it add to having the draft itself?

The datatracker should list draft-cooper-wugh-github-wg-configuration as being replaced by this document.

I concur with Mirja's questions about the value of publishing this document given that the Tools Team and the Secretariat are already working towards what it describes.  It seems to me that the objectives to spur discussion and reach rough consensus (through the WG and IETF LCs) have been met and that publication is not necessary...except for the fact that this document is currently a Normative reference in draft-ietf-git-using-github...

I'm not quite sure this needs to be published (in terms of archival
value), but don't feel strongly enough to post an Abstain position.

Section 1

   conventions proposed here: that is fine.  The goal of the proposals
   in this document is not to require uniformity in current practice,
   but to help working groups get started using GitHub in a uniform way
   if desired.

It seems like perhaps the uniformity is not the key part (since we've
disclaimed total uniformity and endorsed WG sovreignity), but rather
that the set of practices has been reviewed and validated already.

Section 2

Should we give commit hashes for the listed examples of automation so as
to provide a stable reference?

Section 2.4

So those ADs at time of closing are privileged and retain access
indefinitely?

Section 3.1

[I mentioned CONTRIBUTING vs. CONTRIBUTING.md on the other doc, and
cross-document consistency is good.]

I'd prefer to have this document incorporated in the proposed BCP so as to have the guidance in one document. I understand from the discussion this was decided not to be the best approach.

* Section 2.5:

If there is an expectation that datatracker is expected to drive the creation of the document repositories on github and to provide access to authors/editors (as this section implies) I think there is a need for identity mapping for authors/editors similar to what is specified in Section 2.1 ("Steps 3 and 4 above imply that the GitHub identities of the organization owners and administrators are known." related to ticket 2548).