Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
To be honest I don't fully understand the point of this document. It seem like this document is supposed to be the basis for more discussion, however, I thought that's what we have the wg for. So when and how do we come to a final decision if we want to implement the proposed changes? And what would we do in that case - take this document and republish? Why can't we make the decision first and then publish something? In short, I think it would be important that the document also describes what the next steps are and the triggers to move on!
Other questions/comments: 1) Sec 2.3: "There should likely be an API to specify that there were personnel changes." Inline with the comment in the shepherd write-up, I find this sentence really unclear. I'm not even sure where the API should be (datatracker or GitHub) and what is should do? 2) Sec 2.5: "Creating a new repository for an individual draft" This section indicated that also individual drafts could be maintained within the official wg organization. I'm not sure if that is practical or desirable: Which individual docs should the chairs allow repos for and which not? There can be quite a lot of draft in some groups. 3) Also sec 2.5: " As an incremental step, this document proposes that there be a facility in the Datatracker interface to allow an administrator of an ietf-wg-<wgname> organization to request the creation of a new repository within that organization for a single document." For -00 version you usually want to have a repo before you submit it to the datatracker. So a button on the datatracker page of the draft does not seems too useful... 4) Sec 2.6: "At the time of this writing this feature was under development." Wasn't there always/for a long time already a feature where you can add link to external pages?
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.
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.
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.]
* 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).
********************************************************************** * 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>. 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 abstain with the meaning of "I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the way of the others." per https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ Is there a reason why "GitHub" is used rather than simply "Git" ? Is it implicit to be the commercial web site "github.com" ? If so, let's be clear in this first document from the GIT WG. Alternatives such as GitLab and BitBucket are only briefly mentioned. And, I understand that the GIT charter is also quite vague on this topic and SHOULD be updated to make it clear if this document is not clear about what is "GitHub". The document itself is clear, easy to read, and sensible except for the unique perceived focus of "github.com". Finally, I cannot accept that an IETF document in 2020 proposes to use an IPv4-only web site (see also the IAB statement https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6 ). Let's eat our own dog food. -éric