On Fri, Aug 2, 2019, at 7:59 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > On 8/2/19 10:03 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > >> 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 > >> 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 think it's problematic if people have to use github to participate > effectively in a WG, or even if github users have significant advantages > at providing input to the WG, especially if the privacy risks haven't > been evaluated and addressed. > > It's one thing to ask people to learn new tools once in awhile. It's > another thing entirely if IETF participants are expected to have their > privacy compromised as a consequence of being able to participate. > > > 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? > > Closer to that, I think. And if I were writing the charter I think I > would specifically task the group with identifying and evaluating risks > to IETF resulting from use of externally-hosted VCSs vs. self-hosted VCSs. The GIT WG was chartered primarily to guide other WGs that wish to use GitHub. Whether or not it's the right tool (for some definition of right) is orthogonal to group's purpose. Best, Chris > > 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. > Yes, but again, just because people showed up to work on github first > doesn't mean it's a good choice for IETF, and the charter of the git WG > does seem to presume that. > > 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. > > There are certainly additional risks (to both IETF in general and WG > participants) that result from IETF using and depending on an external > service that it does not control, and for which the terms and conditions > of use are subject to change at a whim, so that's part of my concern. > For a self-hosted service presumably IETF can establish terms which are > reasonable and consistent with its interests; if the service is > external, this is more difficult. > > There are even more risks to IETF with depending on a vendor that has a > lot of influence in the market, and quite plausibly, a significant > conflict of interest with IETF's purpose. > > Keith > > > >
