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

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:14:08 -0700

Hi Alissa,
At 07:16 AM 12-03-2020, Alissa Cooper 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.

I read RFC 4858.  Paragraph 3.c states that "The Document Shepherd 
then queries the ID Tracker to collect the remaining DISCUSS and 
COMMENT items raised against the document.  The Document Shepherd 
analyzes these items and initializes contact with the ADs who have 
placed them."  I did not see that being done for 
draft-ietf-git-using-github.  Paragraph 2.b states that "If the 
Responsible Area Director has identified issues with 
a          document that must be addressed before IESG Evaluation can 
commence, he or she sends a full evaluation to the Document Shepherd 
and SHOULD also enter the review into the ID Tracker."  The authors 
of draft-ietf-git-using-github did not respond to any of the Last 
Call comments (excluding the reviews from the directorates).

The Last Call ended on March 3.  There is some disagreement over 
whether the document should be a "BCP".  I assumed that it would be 
resolved through discussion with what is sometimes referred to as the 
"IETF Community".  My reading of your message is that it is for the 
working group to decide about that.

There was a GitHub disruption in 2018 which had an impact on IETF 
work.  As such, it is neither an unforeseen incident nor some 
hypothetical scenario.

As for the changes after the closing of the Last Call, I see a bunch 
of "pull" requests to the external web site.  There isn't any 
explanation on the Working Group mailing about the issues and how 
they were addressed.

I would like to raise an objection on the handing of 
draft-ietf-git-using-github.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:25:03 +1100

> explanation on the Working Group mailing about the issues and how 

This is patently false.  The archives of the working group mailing list clearly show a lot of discussion.  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-and-github/

The pull requests are proposed resolutions to points raised in review, but the discussion about those changes is occurring on the mailing list.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:53:13 -0700

Hi Martin,
At 04:25 PM 12-03-2020, Martin Thomson wrote:
>This is patently false.  The archives of the working group mailing 
>list clearly show a lot of 
>discussion.  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-and-github/
>
>The pull requests are proposed resolutions to points raised in 
>review, but the discussion about those changes is occurring on the 
>mailing list.

The archives of the working group mailing list shows that there was a 
discussion during the IESG Evaluation.  Is there a step between the 
end of the Last Call and the IESG Evaluation where issues are identified?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:19:54 -0400

SM, I have trouble understanding the question you are asking.
During and after the IETF LC, questions were asked about the document. 
Being proactive, the WG (authors and chairs) have been proactive in 
addressing the questions (many from the IESG).  This seems to be not 
only appropriate, but highly desirable.  Given that the WG has been 
copied on the emails about the topics and changes, if the WG objects 
they can speak up.

What is it you are objecting to?
Yours,
Joel

PS: While I have a lot of concerns about the push to use git / github, 
Martin and the WG have been very fair and effective about the process 
they are using, and it fits with IETF process.

On 3/12/2020 7:53 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> list clearly show a lot of discussion.  
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-and-github/
>>
>> The pull requests are proposed resolutions to points raised in review, 
>> but the discussion about those changes is occurring on the mailing list.
> 
> discussion during the IESG Evaluation.  Is there a step between the end 
> of the Last Call and the IESG Evaluation where issues are identified?
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 17:46:07 -0700

Hi Joel,
At 05:19 PM 12-03-2020, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>During and after the IETF LC, questions were asked about the 
>document. Being proactive, the WG (authors and chairs) have been 
>proactive in addressing the questions (many from the IESG).  This 
>seems to be not only appropriate, but highly desirable.  Given that 
>the WG has been copied on the emails about the topics and changes, 
>if the WG objects they can speak up.
>

I asked a question about whether there was a step after the end of 
the Last Call and the (beginning) of the IESG Evaluation.  That is 
not related to the discussion between the Working Group author(s) and 
IESG members.  In case it got missed, I submitted comments on the 
Last Call.  Mr Rescorla responded on one point.  There were other 
points in my comments.  I didn't see any response to that from the 
Working Group.

I phrased the followed questions as simple as possible so that there 
is less room for misunderstanding at the other end:  Who assesses 
whether the objection is valid or not?   Who speaks on behalf of the 
Working Group?

I skipped over the "patently false" comment so as to avoid the usual 
IETF unpleasantness.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 21:24:40 -0400

For IETF LC (including comments after the LC ends), the relevant AD is 
responsible for judging any comments.  In practice, usually the authors 
and chairs respond, but if there is some doubt it is up to the AD.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/12/2020 8:46 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I asked a question about whether there was a step after the end of the 
> Last Call and the (beginning) of the IESG Evaluation.  That is not 
> related to the discussion between the Working Group author(s) and IESG 
> members.  In case it got missed, I submitted comments on the Last Call.  
> Mr Rescorla responded on one point.  There were other points in my 
> comments.  I didn't see any response to that from the Working Group.
> 
> I phrased the followed questions as simple as possible so that there is 
> less room for misunderstanding at the other end:  Who assesses whether 
> the objection is valid or not?   Who speaks on behalf of the Working Group?
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:03:40 -0700

Hi Joel,
At 06:24 PM 12-03-2020, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>For IETF LC (including comments after the LC ends), the relevant AD 
>is responsible for judging any comments.  In practice, usually the 
>authors and chairs respond, but if there is some doubt it is up to the AD.

Thank you for the reply.

Please see 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-git-github-wg-configuration/shepherdwriteup/

Regards,
S. Moonesamy