Subject: [Ietf-and-github] BoF meeting in Chicago

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 17:34:39 -0800

Greetings. The General ADs have said that there will be a WUGH (WGs 
Using GitHub) BoF session in Chicago. Unless some very late change gets 
made, it will be Monday March 27, 1710-1810 Chicago local time / 
2310-0010 UTC. They have asked me to chair the BoF.

At this point, there are two active drafts that we can discuss:
- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-wugh-services/>, 
"Using Third Party Services for IETF Work"
- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomson-github-bcp/>, "Using 
GitHub at the IETF"

Given that we only have an hour, I tentatively propose the following 
agenda:

Brief intro to the BoF - 5 mins
Roll call of WGs actively using GitHub - 10 minutes
    Let people in the room see people whom they talk to later
Third-party services, draft-nottingham-wugh-services - 10 mins
Basics of WGs using GitHub, draft-thomson-github-bcp - 20 mins
Short non-slide presentations on issues people have come across - 
remainder

Does this sound like the right focus for the hour?

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:05:06 +1100

I don't have any concerns with how we spend the time, but I do want to
ask what we think the focus should be, see below.

>    Let people in the room see people whom they talk to later

Want to start the roll-call here so that we can at least include a
seed list?  Not all of the relevant people are going to be in the
room.

I assume that you want a 10 second synopsis of what it is used for at
the meeting (the Readers Digest version of what the github-bcp draft
appendicies includes).

> Basics of WGs using GitHub, draft-thomson-github-bcp - 20 mins

It would be good if we can try to focus on addressing some questions.
Both of these drafts imply some questions, if only the question of "is
this something that makes sense as an RFC?", but we might want to try
to find some concrete actions other than the movement of paper.

I don't think that we're going to have people mandate or forbid any
particular work mode, but we might want to consider whether there is
any desire to ask the Secretariat for specific types of support, for
example.

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 18:34:23 -0700

> seed list?  Not all of the relevant people are going to be in the

Yes, I was going to do that (if people liked the idea) and I would have 
the WG names in the slides.

> the meeting (the Readers Digest version of what the github-bcp draft

Yes, exactly. httpbis: "Almost all our documents, using pull requests 
liberally." dnsop: "A few documents, and people still seem to want to 
bring issues up on the list but like tracking them as GitHub issues". 
...

> to find some concrete actions other than the movement of paper.

Yes. I want people to add questions to Mark's document, and experiences 
to yours. I think the question of "should this be an RFC" can be done 
better on this list after the meeting because we only have an hour. (I 
do note that we are the last meeting on Monday, so some folks might want 
to continue the conversations over deep-dish pizza...)

> any desire to ask the Secretariat for specific types of support, for

Yes, definitely. One thing that came up in conversation was "should the 
GitHub page for a document be listed on the Datatracker"?

--Paul Hoffman