Subject: [Ietf-and-github] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:53:31 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a process DISCUSS.  I don't believe the status of this document as a
BCP belonging to BCP 25 was discussed in the WG or with the IETF community.

The Charter for the git WG only explicitly mentions BCP 9:

   The documents produced by this group will not alter the Internet Standards
   Process (BCP 9). They will describe how to work within it. Whether working
   groups choose to use GitHub or the documented policies to support their work
   will remain entirely at their discretion.

However, including this document as a part of BCP 25 (IETF Working Group
Guidelines and Procedures) results in the interpretation that it represents
consensus on how WGs should proceed -- and not that the decision "to use GitHub
or the documented policies...[is]...entirely at their discretion."

My reading of the mailing list is that the current RFC Editor note (in which
appending the document to BCP 25 is requested) was added only after the topic
was brought up in the Genart LC review.  [Did I miss the discussion?]

IOW, both (1) the process of reaching the conclusion that this document belongs
in BCP 25, and (2) the concept that this document would be part of BCP 25, are
the subject of my DISCUSS.    I would like for the IESG to discuss this topic.

Not expecting this document to be part of BCP 25, or having an explicit
discussion with the community about it, would lead me to clear my DISCUSS.

====
[Non blocking comment.  I'm including it here because it is related to the
status of the document.]

This document would be very good Informational document.

I am not a regular GitHub user (and none of the WGs I'm responsible for use it
as part of their process), but I have no reason to doubt that the text
represents what is believed to be the best way to use GitHub within the IETF
process.  However, the designation as a BCP can create confusion.  [Again, this
is a non-blocking comment.]

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

(0) I share Warren's concerns.

(1) The datatracker should list draft-thomson-git-using-github as being
replaced by this document.

(2) It would be nice to have a short terminology section; I assume many people
reading this document will not already be GitHub-savy, so push, pull, commits,
may not be familiar to them.  Alternatively, an Informational pointer to a
tutorial would also be ok.

(3) Personally, I don't have an issue with the use of GitHub, but some of the
statements in the Introduction sound like marketing blurbs, for example:

- "Use of this service has been found to reduce the time that Working Groups
   need to produce documents and to improve the quality of the final result."

- "...encourage contributions from a larger set of contributors."

- "Using GitHub can also broaden the community of contributors for a
   specification."

(4) [nit] s/This is problematic for contributors who do not track discussion
closely./This is problematic for contributors who do not track discussions
closely.

(5) [major]  §5.3: "Working Group chairs SHOULD confirm that the Working Group
has consensus to adopt any process."  When would the chairs not confirm
consensus to adopt a process?  IOW, why is this not a MUST?

Note that §3 says this:

   Working Group Chairs are responsible for determining how to best
   accomplish the charter objectives in an open and transparent fashion.
   The Working Group Chairs are responsible for determining if there is
   interest in using GitHub and making a consensus call to determine if
   the proposed policy and use is acceptable.

Even though this text doesn't use rfc2119 keywords, my impression of the intent
is that it is required for the chairs to make the consensus call.  IOW, I think
that this text and the one above (from §5.3) are in conflict.

(6) §5.3.2:

   Gaining Working Group consensus about the resolution of issues can be
   done in the abstract, with editors being permitted to capture the
   outcome of discussions as they see fit.

This sentence doesn't sound right to me: "consensus...can be done in the
abstract, with editors being permitted to capture the outcome...as they see
fit".  That last part doesn't sound right: Chairs call consensus.  Maybe I'm
misinterpreting...

(7) [major]. Why is draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration listed as a
Normative Reference?  I don't think that dependency is needed.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:32:54 +1300

On 12-Mar-20 07:53, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker wrote:
...

Would a sentence to that effect in the Abstract and Introduction help? 

> was brought up in the Genart LC review.  [Did I miss the discussion?]

Speaking as the Gen-ART reviewer, you're correct (and I regret not having
noticed this point earlier so that I could have brought it up in the WG).

> the subject of my DISCUSS.    I would like for the IESG to discuss this topic.

Have things changed? In the old days this question (which BCP number?) was typically
left to the discretion of the RFC Editor, possibly with a bit of discussion
with the AD. I certainly don't object to community discussion, of course (and
we did do that in the case of BCP 101 recently).

   Brian

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-and-github mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github
>

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:39:56 -0700

On March 11, 2020 at 3:32:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Brian:

Hi!

> > groups choose to use GitHub or the documented policies to support their
> > work will remain entirely at their discretion.
> >
> > consensus on how WGs should proceed -- and not that the decision "to use
> > GitHub or the documented policies...[is]...entirely at their discretion."
>

It wouldn't hurt, but it also doesn't help with my issue: having this
document be part of BCP 25.

...
> > IOW, both (1) the process of reaching the conclusion that this document
> > belongs in BCP 25, and (2) the concept that this document would be part of
> > BCP 25, are the subject of my DISCUSS. I would like for the IESG to discuss
> > this topic.
>
> Have things changed? In the old days this question (which BCP number?) was
> typically left to the discretion of the RFC Editor, possibly with a bit of
> discussion with the AD. I certainly don't object to community discussion, of
> course (and we did do that in the case of BCP 101 recently).

No, I don't think things have changed.  In this case, the AD added a
note to the RFC Editor requesting them to "append this document to BCP
25 at the time of publication."

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-git-using-github/writeup/

However, I believe that BCP 25 is a special case because it applies
directly to WG operation.  The intention of adding documents to it
should (at least) be clear and some discussion should exist.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:17:04 +1100

Hi Alvaro,

Thanks for the feedback.  I think that we'll pursue the DISCUSS thing separately.  I want to (attempt to) discharge your comments.

I have prepared a pull request that you can review here: https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github/pull/47
I appreciate that you didn't repeat comments from others, but in case you care, there is a collection of changes proposed as a result of other reviews: https://github.com/ietf-gitwg/using-github/pulls

> tutorial would also be ok.

I've added a reference to the GitHub glossary that covers both git and GitHub terminology in some detail.
 
> - "Using GitHub can also broaden the community of contributors for a

That's a fair observation, yes.

> that this text and the one above (from §5.3) are in conflict.

I'm going to remove the keywords here.  Because this is a specialization of language from RFC 2418 and while the specialization is useful, the use of 2119 keywords isn't consistent with the original:

  The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions,
   on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working
   group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the
   IETF.  

Others have had trouble with this.  Perhaps rephrasing is in order.  How does this sound?

> Chairs are able to declare Working Group consensus about the resolution of issues in the abstract, allowing editors discretion on how to capture the decisions in documents.

> Normative Reference?  I don't think that dependency is needed.

I will adjust.  There is no normative dependency.  Thanks for noticing.

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 03:13:59 -0700

On March 11, 2020 at 7:17:23 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:

Martin:

Hi!

> Thanks for the feedback. I think that we'll pursue the DISCUSS thing
> separately.

Sure.

> I want to (attempt to) discharge your comments.

All your answers look fine to me.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:40:23 -0400

I am indifferent about this being part of BCP 25. Brian suggested it so I added the note. I’m happy to remove the note if necessary. 

Alissa

> On Mar 11, 2020, at 4:39 PM, Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>>> GitHub or the documented policies...[is]...entirely at their discretion.."
>> 
> ....

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:16:29 -0400

WG:

Based on discussion with Alvaro on the IESG telechat today, I said I would take out the RFC Editor note about BCP 25 tomorrow if no one from the WG objects. This document will then get its own BCP number when it is published.

Alissa

> On Mar 12, 2020, at 8:40 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:23:41 +0100

Hi,

I do not understand - will this become a BCP even though github is 
IPv4-only?

I am asking, because if it is so, then I think I disagree.

Alex

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:05:32 +0000

Pragmatism should alway trump perfection

- Stewart

> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:23, Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I do not understand - will this become a BCP even though github is IPv4-only?
>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:11:53 +0100

I pragmatically say - I disagree with BCP github.com IPv4.

I wait a bit and I might unregister from this group, even though I 
recently gladly accepted the invitation to join.  Things move fast :-)

Alex

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 08:20:55 -0700

As someone else said, I think the BCP is not that working groups should use
github but rather that if they do chose to this documents BCP
considerations for how to do so.

(But I do think it's disappointing that github.com [and gitlab.com] seem to
be IPv4-only in 2020.)

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:12 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> >>> Based on discussion with Alvaro on the IESG telechat today, I said I
> would take out the RFC Editor note about BCP 25 tomorrow if no one from the
> WG objects. This document will then get its own BCP number when it is
> published.
> >>> Alissa
> >>>> I am indifferent about this being part of BCP 25. Brian suggested it
> so I added the note. I’m happy to remove the note if necessary.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alissa
> >>>>
> >>>>

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:32:21 +0000

*   As someone else said, I think the BCP is not that working groups should use github but rather that if they do chose to this documents BCP considerations for how to do so.

Yes exactly.

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:32:32 +0100

Le 12/03/2020 à 16:20, Erik Kline a écrit :
> As someone else said, I think the BCP is not that working groups should 
> use github but rather that if they do chose to this documents BCP 

Even then, nobody at IETF can recommend to use github.com.  Because it 
is IPv4 only.

A BCP documents the best common practice, and the best _current_ practice.

A very good current practice can be observed as it happens right now. 
It is a practice.

How is github.com used by people?

Is that practice ok?

It is ok, but it is not the best, at least because it is over IPv4 and 
not over IPv6.

How are people using github.tools.ietf.org?  I dont know, because it 
does not exist.  Lets build it, try it on IPv6, suggest it to people to 
use, and then look whether we can BCP it.

BCP github, is some theoretical concept that is not understood.

One more RFC with things in theory that are interpreted in many 
different ways?

Alex

> 
> (But I do think it's disappointing that github.com <http://github.com> 
> [and gitlab.com <http://gitlab.com>] seem to be IPv4-only in 2020.)
> 
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:12 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     I pragmatically say - I disagree with BCP github.com
>     <http://github.com> IPv4.
> 
>      >> On 12 Mar 2020, at 14:23, Alexandre Petrescu
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     wrote:
>      >>
>      >> Hi,
>      >>
>      >>> Based on discussion with Alvaro on the IESG telechat today, I
>     said I would take out the RFC Editor note about BCP 25 tomorrow if
>     no one from the WG objects. This document will then get its own BCP
>     number when it is published.
>      >>> Alissa
>      >>>> On Mar 12, 2020, at 8:40 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>      >>>>
>      >>>> I am indifferent about this being part of BCP 25. Brian
>     suggested it so I added the note. I’m happy to remove the note if
>     necessary.
>      >>>>
>      >>>> Alissa
>      >>>>
>      >>>>
>      >>>>> On Mar 11, 2020, at 4:39 PM, Alvaro Retana
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>      >>>>>
>      >>>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>      >>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>      >> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 08:16:26 +1300

To be precise, my review said:

> Is this draft intended to become part of BCP25? I think it would be
> useful for the IESG to clarify this rather than leave it to the RFC Editor.

I intentionally didn't express an opinion.

   Brian
On 13-Mar-20 01:40, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> .

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:52:24 -0400

Given the message from Chris about informational vs. BCP, I will wait on this.
Alissa

> On Mar 12, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> WG:
>

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:48:55 -0400

FYI, the status of this document was changed to informational.

Alissa

> On Mar 11, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 15:54:59 +0000

A very good and wise change

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: iesg <[email-masked]> on behalf of Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, 20 March 2020 at 15:50
To: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, IESG <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Christopher Wood <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-git-using-github-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

    Alissa