Skip to main content

GitHub Integration and Tooling
charter-ietf-git-01

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2019-02-08
01 Cindy Morgan New version available: charter-ietf-git-01.txt
2019-02-08
00-02 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved from External Review (Message to Community, Selected by Secretariat)
2019-02-08
00-02 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the charter
2019-02-08
00-02 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2019-02-08
00-02 Cindy Morgan WG action text was changed
2019-02-07
00-02 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alvaro Retana has been changed to Yes from No Objection
2019-02-07
00-02 Alissa Cooper New version available: charter-ietf-git-00-02.txt
2019-02-07
00-01 Alvaro Retana [Ballot comment]
Please include the proposed additions from the thread on the list:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-and-github/HhQaNLRknBsYLtUqkpTelxvJqpU
https://github.com/martinthomson/ietf-git-charter/pull/1/files
2019-02-07
00-01 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2019-02-07
00-01 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2019-02-07
00-01 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2019-02-07
00-01 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2019-02-07
00-01 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2019-02-07
00-01 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2019-02-06
00-01 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2019-02-06
00-01 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
"The documents will not alter the Internet Standards Process (BCP 9), they will
describe how to work within it." is a …
[Ballot comment]
"The documents will not alter the Internet Standards Process (BCP 9), they will
describe how to work within it." is a comma splice.
2019-02-06
00-01 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2019-02-06
00-01 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2019-02-06
00-01 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2019-02-06
00-01 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2019-02-05
00-01 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2019-02-05
00-01 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2019-02-05
00-01 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2019-02-05
00-01 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2019-01-25
00-01 Amy Vezza Telechat date has been changed to 2019-02-07 from 2019-01-24
2019-01-25
00-01 Amy Vezza Created "Approve" ballot
2019-01-25
00-01 Amy Vezza Closed "Ready for external review" ballot
2019-01-25
00-01 Amy Vezza State changed to External Review (Message to Community, Selected by Secretariat) from Start Chartering/Rechartering (Internal IESG/IAB Review)
2019-01-25
00-01 Amy Vezza WG new work message text was changed
2019-01-25
00-01 Amy Vezza WG review text was changed
2019-01-25
00-01 Amy Vezza WG review text was changed
2019-01-25
00-01 Amy Vezza WG review text was changed
2019-01-24
00-01 Alissa Cooper New version available: charter-ietf-git-00-01.txt
2019-01-24
00-00 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2019-01-23
00-00 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
"The documents will not alter the Internet Standards Process (BCP 9), they will
describe how to work within it." is a …
[Ballot comment]
"The documents will not alter the Internet Standards Process (BCP 9), they will
describe how to work within it." is a comma splice.
2019-01-23
00-00 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2019-01-23
00-00 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2019-01-23
00-00 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot comment]
If possible, I would like to see some mention in the charter regarding mirroring of the github repositories on the IETF side.
2019-01-23
00-00 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2019-01-23
00-00 Eric Rescorla
[Ballot comment]
I am fine with this, but it seems to leave open the question about whether these policies would be binding if you chose …
[Ballot comment]
I am fine with this, but it seems to leave open the question about whether these policies would be binding if you chose to use Github -- though obviously non-binding if you chose to use Bitbucket or something. I'm sure the answer is "no", but maybe we should make that clear?
2019-01-23
00-00 Eric Rescorla [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla
2019-01-23
00-00 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2019-01-23
00-00 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2019-01-23
00-00 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2019-01-23
00-00 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2019-01-23
00-00 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2019-01-23
00-00 Martin Vigoureux
[Ballot comment]
Hello,

The GitHub Integration and Tooling (GIT) working group will select a set of
such practices and document policies that support those practices. …
[Ballot comment]
Hello,

The GitHub Integration and Tooling (GIT) working group will select a set of
such practices and document policies that support those practices. The
policies will each detail how work is conducted by working groups that opt to
follow the work practice. The goal is to provide both process and tooling
support for working groups that choose to adopt the documented practices.

This paragraph first states that policies will be documented but ends up saying practices will be documented.
2019-01-23
00-00 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2019-01-22
00-00 Ben Campbell [Ballot comment]
I share Spencer's questions
2019-01-22
00-00 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2019-01-21
00-00 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Two minor questions:

1) I'm not sure of all or any of the documents this group will produce should be BCP given that …
[Ballot comment]
Two minor questions:

1) I'm not sure of all or any of the documents this group will produce should be BCP given that BCP9 will not be changed. If the group ends up to rather documenting what done today than giving recommendations that might be informational only. However, that's not really an issue I guess. If you want to be on the save side you could say in the milestone s/as BCP/as BCP or informational/

2) Is any discussion about operating an own git service in scope for this group? If not, would it make sense to explicitly exclude it in the charter?
2019-01-21
00-00 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2019-01-15
00-00 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
(I had some comments during Internal Review that I haven't seen replies to, but this is close enough to send out the way …
[Ballot comment]
(I had some comments during Internal Review that I haven't seen replies to, but this is close enough to send out the way it is)

Many IETF working groups use external code repository services, primarily
GitHub, in managing their work. Individual working groups, while continuing
to operate within IETF guidelines for working group activity, have developed
their own policies and practices for how they use these services. These
policies and practices cover aspects such as: managing discussion between
working group mailing lists and GitHub issues and pull requests; how text
contributions are expected to be made; labeling and naming conventions;
maintaining readable draft snapshots; using tooling and automation; and
others.

I don't know whether best practices for Note Well awareness are implicitly covered here, but I remember that's often a subject that comes up when a working group starts to use Github. The examples given aren't exhaustive, so perhaps they're sufficient, but it comes up so often it might be worth mentioning explicitly.

The GitHub Integration and Tooling (GIT) working group will select a set of
such practices and document policies that support those practices. The
policies will each detail how work is conducted by working groups that opt to
follow the work practice. The goal is to provide both process and tooling
support for working groups that choose to adopt the documented practices.

I don't actually know how stable the way Github works has been in recent years, or how stable it's expected to be. Is the goal for this working group one-and-done, or are we talking about an ongoing process as the way Github works, and the way IETF working groups work, evolves? 

The documents will not alter the Internet Standards Process (BCP 9), they
will describe how to work within it. Whether working groups choose to use
GitHub to support their work will remain entirely at their discretion.

The working group may also discuss tooling requirements in support of GitHub
use. Decisions about implementing specific tooling needs will be undertaken
in consultation with the IETF Tools Team and other interested contributors.

It should surprise no one that I don't actually know who makes those decisions, which hasn't mattered for my time on the IESG up to this point, but I thought I should ask now if this is the way people expect the chartered working group to interact with the IETF Tools Team. One might read this as saying the working group plus the IETF Tools Team (and other interested contributors) are the decision makers. If that's correct, awesome. 
2019-01-15
00-00 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2019-01-08
00-00 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2019-01-08
00-00 Alissa Cooper Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-01-24
2019-01-07
00-00 Alissa Cooper WG action text was changed
2019-01-07
00-00 Alissa Cooper WG review text was changed
2019-01-07
00-00 Alissa Cooper WG review text was changed
2019-01-07
00-00 Alissa Cooper Created "Ready for external review" ballot
2019-01-07
00-00 Alissa Cooper State changed to Start Chartering/Rechartering (Internal IESG/IAB Review) from Draft Charter
2019-01-02
00-00 Alissa Cooper Added charter milestone "Work practice description and policy document(s) sent to IESG for publication as BCP", due August 2019
2019-01-02
00-00 Alissa Cooper Initial review time expires 2019-01-09
2019-01-02
00-00 Alissa Cooper State changed to Draft Charter from Not currently under review
2019-01-02
00-00 Alissa Cooper New version available: charter-ietf-git-00-00.txt