Subject: [Ietf-and-github] BOF or other things to do?

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:16:49 +0200

First, wanted to know if there’s been any progress made re:
the draft. Is there?

Also, Paul had asked me if a BOF should be scheduled to
discuss this topic for IETF #98.

But I’m looking for your advice.

Obviously we all love doing all we can to help GitHub and other similar
things be easy and even more productive for the IETFers work. But what
does “help” then mean in practice?

What do members of this list think about that? Is there some definition
of a BOF that would be helpful? Would an education session be helpful?
Would an informal meeting with people discussing how their WGs
do things be helpful? Would people working on the topic be helpful
without a meeting? (Should somebody just write that document, for
instance? :-) ) Would some IETF leadership action be helpful?
Or something else? Or perhaps we should stop helping and
let you get on with the task?

Thoughts?

Jari

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:20:15 +0000

We had a WG chairs lunch session on it, but I think a wider-IETF session would be (more) useful.  Show folks about making PR's, opening issues, get some chairs to talk about how useful it is, etc.

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:31:55 -0800

> does “help” then mean in practice?

My thought was "a draft that has contributions from all WGs currently 
using GitHub and from at least four people who use it in their daily 
work and have ideas of things that would be useful for IETF work".

> let you get on with the task?

My thought for asking for a BoF instead of a bar BoF is that I would 
expect at least 50 interested people and thus a Bar BoF discussion would 
get unwieldy and not actually turn into more effort on the draft (cf. 
the dns-over-http bar BoF in Seoul). As Rich points out, we had the WG 
Chairs meeting, and yet that didn't produce anything noticable.

It may be that this is premature and we need more experience seeping out 
from httpbis and tls WGs (and now a bit from dnsop) to the rest of the 
world, but it feels like OK timing to me.

--Paul

---

From: Niels ten Oever <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:51:42 +0100

Hi all,

On 01/30/2017 04:16 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>  Would an education session be helpful?

Educating would be great, but I think we haven't THE way to do it yet
(or is that just me?).

> do things be helpful? 

I think that would be really helpful, and this would also educate people.

> Would people working on the topic be helpful
> instance? :-) ) 

It might be interesting to get people with different approaches to this
together.

> Would some IETF leadership action be helpful?

I think a room might be sufficient to get this to the next level. Maybe
this could be a room with break out set-up, so we could see how is
interested in drafting a document, who wants to exchange tips and trick,
etc.

Cheers,

Niels
-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                     678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:14:50 +0000

> from httpbis and tls WGs (and now a bit from dnsop) to the rest of the world,
> but it feels like OK timing to me.

And ACME :)

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:02:35 +1100

> Educating would be great, but I think we haven't THE way to do it yet

It's not clear that the-one-true-method is even a goal.  Certainly it
would help to have a baseline set of expectations for participants,
that helps smooth the bumps.

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:59:51 +0000

> First, wanted to know if there’s been any progress made re:

No. I was at the QUIC interim and got buried under dayjob stuff on return. The repo is https://github.com/larseggert/github-bcp and people can start using it to write. I don't need to be an author here, if it turns out that others have more cycles.

> Would an informal meeting with people discussing how their WGs

If we want a meeting, I think the above would be most useful.

Lars

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:11:16 -0800

On 31 Jan 2017, at 0:59, Eggert, Lars wrote:

> No. I was at the QUIC interim and got buried under dayjob stuff on 
> return. The repo is https://github.com/larseggert/github-bcp and 
> people can start using it to write. I don't need to be an author here, 
> if it turns out that others have more cycles.
>

Note to the list: if you are part of a WG that is actively using GitHub, 
please consider putting together maybe three paragraphs about the use 
pattern, objections from participants, training, and so on, and put them 
in Lars' repo. If we have a meeting (which I still hope we do), giving 
people not in those WGs a chance to read them first will cause more 
useful questions in the meeting.

I just created a pull request to add such a section to the doc.

--Paul