Subject: [Ietf-and-github] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 06:29:52 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-git-using-github/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for writing up this document. I believe it provides good advice for WG
chairs to use github in their workflow. I also have concerns about
centralization and the lack of IPv6, but I also see the other side of the
argument that the community (specifically the non-IETF collaborators) is what
makes github more useful than self-hosting or other alternatives. Pretty much
everything I wanted to comment has been brought up by my co-ADs and hence I am
content to watch their resolutions. There is only one thing I would like to
propose. In Section 6 regarding I-D publication it would be good if there is a
recommendation (for chairs/editors) to summarize the issues addressed by the
revision especially for the benefit of the WG participants who don't use github.

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:52:20 +1100

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020, at 00:29, Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker wrote:
> There is only one thing I would like to

I think that's a very good suggestion.

What we've found is that this isn't worse than before, but there is potentially an increase in the rate of change that motivates better reporting to the WG.  In QUIC, we use a combination of things, but changelogs are the most heavily relied upon (I know, because I get lots of feedback about my frequent screwups).  All other such efforts have relied on the same basic mechanism.

That to me suggests the following, added to Section 4.3 (https://ietf-gitwg.github.io/using-github/draft-ietf-git-using-github.html#name-monitoring-activity), not Section 6:

> Additionally, clear reporting about the changes that were included in each
revision of an Internet-Draft helps ensure that contributors are able to
follow activity.  This might be achieved by requesting that editors provide a
change log that captures substantive changes to the document in each revision.

Does that sound reasonable?  

https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github/pull/50

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:47:43 +0000

Hi Martin,

> On Mar 12, 2020, at 8:52 PM, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

That sounds great. Thank you.

Regards
Suresh