Subject: [Ietf-and-github] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on charter-ietf-git-00-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 02:52:40 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-git-00-00: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-git/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Two minor questions:

1) I'm not sure of all or any of the documents this group will produce should
be BCP given that BCP9 will not be changed. If the group ends up to rather
documenting what done today than giving recommendations that might be
informational only. However, that's not really an issue I guess. If you want to
be on the save side you could say in the milestone s/as BCP/as BCP or
informational/

2) Is any discussion about operating an own git service in scope for this
group? If not, would it make sense to explicitly exclude it in the charter?

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 06:40:53 -0500

> informational only.

It seems likely to me that we'll get one (likely) or more (less
likely, but maybe) BCP documents that say "if you use GitHub, this is
how you need to do it in order to comply with BCP 9."  I'd fully
expect a BCP to come out of this WG, and would be quite surprised if
it decides not to do that.

Barry

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:11:24 -0500

Hi Mirja,

> On Jan 21, 2019, at 5:52 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I think this is already safe since the milestones can change without a re-charter. I agree with Barry that I expect the documents produced to be BCPs, and we discussed this on the list a bit before inserting the milestone. But if for some reason that doesn’t happen, changing the milestone wouldn’t be hard.

> group? If not, would it make sense to explicitly exclude it in the charter?

I think the use of  “external code repository services” and “GitHub” (rather than git) throughout make it clear that this is out of scope. 

Thanks,
Alissa