Subject: [Ietf-and-github] A possible way of keeping WG informed of github tracked issues?

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:00:51 -0500

Hello,

Having an automated way of keeping a WG informed of issues being tracked
on gitub seems like a pretty critical enabler.

Perhaps just having each WG added as a 'watcher' would work (see
https://help.github.com/articles/about-notifications/)

This also has the benefit of getting issues into a more permanent and
easily located WG 'record'.

Does anyone have any experience with this feature?  Any alternate
thoughts/experiences?

Thanks,
Lou

PS Is anyone out there?

---

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 18:29:20 +0000

If you were to create a ³team² for an IETF working group, that team could
watch the project, and all members of the team would get notifications.

Cheers,
Charles 

On 1/29/16, 6:00 PM, "Ietf-and-github on behalf of Lou Berger"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-and-github mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-and-github

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 21:51:25 +0100

In the W3C WEBRTC WG, we get notifications sent to the WG when issues
are opened and when issues are closed.

We considered sending all the updates too, but that would be overload -
many Github issue comments are small, and assume that the reader has the
rest of the conversation onscreen (Github notifications do not include
context, but the Github conversation view does).

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:57:15 +1300

Harald,

There could be cases, surely, where that would be problematic
for the IETF.

No problem if the issue is a spelling error.

But suppose the issue is a choice between red and blue bytes,
and the issue is settled as 'red' because somebody alleges that
blue bytes are patented. That dialogue needs to be on the WG list.

Also, we need counsel's opinion on how we ensure that IETF process
rules apply to everything that happens on gh. Some of us have
put some words in the readme for the repo. Is that enough?
https://github.com/becarpenter/animaproto/blob/master/README.md

   Brian

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 11:08:23 +1100

> put some words in the readme for the repo. Is that enough?

That's a good question, probably worthy of a new thread.

This is what a lot of repos have in them: