On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 08:21:42PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > On 8/2/19 8:05 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > > I'm a bit puzzled by this. Are you arguing that all the WGs that > > organically started using github before we had a GIT WG were/are behaving > > inappropriately? > > I'm not going to fault groups that organically started using github. > (Though I hope they got AD approval before doing so.) Broadly speaking > I'm supportive of groups looking for better tools and better ways to > conduct discussions, though it's imperative that they follow process > (e.g. decisions are made on the mailing list) and that they maintain I would hope that everyone would agree with that! > openness and neutrality (e.g. github users should not be favored.) I think I need to drill down into what "favored" means. It will presumably be multifaceted and subtle, but are you thinking along the lines of "feel more comfortable with the tools" or "'vote's get more weight" or "issues raised get more prompt attention" or "non-github-users get ignored" or other things? In particular, if we somehow could limit what happens to "feel more comfortable with the tools", would that be problematic? (I make no claim yet about how practical such a scenario would be to attain.) > I'm also saying that the risks of using github may now be more obvious, > than they were before several WGs started using it. > > > As for "favored in any way", my understanding is that the > > GIT WG talks about github because there were lots of people that wanted to > > talk about how to use github most effectively, not because anyone decided > > on behalf of the IETF that github is the best thing ever. Does that kind > > of "voting with their feet" count as favoritism to you? > What bothers me is not that there's a group discussing use of version > control software by IETF WGs. What bothers me is that there's a > presumption in the WG's charter that github is appropriate to use, and > that it's favored in the charter simply by singling it out. The > wording of the charter also means that it's problematic to go to that WG > and argue why using github is a bad idea. The chairs could quite > legitimately rule that argument out-of-scope. And anyway, the deck is > already stacked. The way the charter was written it is much more > likely to attract github proponents than people who prefer other systems > or services. I'm still trying to understand where things went wrong (in your perception): should we have instead chartered a WG to consider how WGs could use VCS in general (without prejudging as to external services or self-hosted), with an early task being to determine whether external services, and github in particular, are appropriate for use in the IETF? In a later reply you say "we shouldn't presume that github is the solution just because it's currently popular", but I'm not sure that that matches up what is happening. My perception is that yes, there is a presumption, but that github is *a* solution, one of potentially many, and with a further presumption that the WG cannot override existing BCP-documented procedures, including that work is ultimately taken to the mailing lists. This one got a WG because the people showed up to do the work. If we had two other WGs, one to discuss using tooling for using vim to write XML sources for I-Ds directly, and another discussing tooling for using emacs to write Markdown sources for I-Ds, is the main difference from the GIT WG just that the tooling in question involves an external service? I'm not sure if I'm missing anything from your argument/stance. Thanks, Ben
