On 17. Mar 2024, at 14:16, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/16/24 22:27, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> (1) Integration with, or generally use of, GitHub as a place to conduct WG business certainly has its advantages, but it has also essentially become a second datatracker and WG mailing list. I imagine (but could be wrong) that asserting control over what participants are allowed to do there as a meeting approaches will be difficult if not impossible. I don't think it's possible to put that back in its bag at this point. > IMO github has made it much more difficult for participants to follow a discussion, That depends a lot on how the tools are used. The git forge issues mechanisms are great to capture an issue and to run an initial design-team level discussion on it. The git forge PR mechanism is good for banging text into shape. Any decisions of the WG need to happen on the mailing list. These decisions may reference the git forge threads, but these in most WGs are not considered a replacement for WG decisions. If you don’t like how this goes, please talk to your WG chair; the details may be subject to adjustment. > since they essentially have to follow it in multiple places. I see advantages to github but only in late stages of a document's evolution, when most of the activity is "wordsmithing". >> >> (2) The diversity of opinions makes me think we should consider allowing working group chairs to decide for their working groups whether, and how long, an embargo should last. > > I disagree. I think it makes it even more difficult for IETF participants when every WG essentially has its own rules, and that's to IETF's detriment in general. +1 Grüße, Carsten
