Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Fwd: Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: Ietf-and-github -- Discussion of using GitHub in IETF activities, particularly for Working Groups

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:52:58 -0500

So at one of the tools committee meetings I asked about standing up a
gitlab instance for IETF and was told something along the lines of
"someone looked at it and concluded it didn't meet our needs".  I'm a
private instance user of open source gitlab and am very happy with it. 

Can someone elaborate on why using open source gitlab for something like
git.ietf.org is a bad idea?

Thanks,
Lou

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: Ietf-and-github -- Discussion of
using GitHub in IETF activities, particularly for Working Groups
Date: 	Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:50:48 -0900
From: 	Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked]

On 1/26/16 1:39 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Yes; no. Further, this goes well beyond "protocols": it is mostly about
> interface for WG participants.

I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to be fussy about
this but fussy we are, so I'll add that I think this is
about working group tools rather than working group
"interfaces" (individual contributors already can
and do use pretty much whatever they want to get
their documents ready).

I am not a fan of making IETF processes dependent on
technologies that don't "belong" to the IETF and I don't
think it's a trivial concern, but if the IETF tools
aren't working for us it makes sense to look outside for
tools that do.

Melinda

---

From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:56:11 +0000

Let's set one up, and see how it stacks up.  Talk a WG into using it, and show off how well it works.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

On 1/26/16, 4:52 PM, "TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT on behalf of Lou Berger" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:57:24 -0800

Lou,

> On Jan 26, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Lou Berger <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

I have been using github for some 6MAN drafts.

I have the opposite questions, why do we need our own version if the default version would work?  Why spend our time, effort, and money to host and support it?

Bob

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:47:59 -0500

Bob,

On January 26, 2016 6:57:54 PM Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I have the opposite questions, why do we need our own version if the 
> default version would work?  Why spend our time, effort, and money to host 
> and support it?

This is a truly excellent question.

The first and main concern I have is related to the type of information 
that is being stored on github. I  have no issue with using it as a 
repository for documents in development, as the end result is a document 
published and archived via the normal ietf  process.  (I'm using it for 
several documents at the moment too.) But I do have a concern related to 
the other types of information that is being / may be stored and exchanged 
via github. In particular, the information stored in the issue tracker 
feature. In the uses I have seen of it, I believe there are exchanges, 
information, that really belong as part of the archived working group  record.

A secondary concern, is the exposure we have if one day github shuts down 
or starts charging. I certainly agree that this can be addressed through 
the contingency plan vs a defensive plan where we spend money today.

Given how useful and  important this tool is likely to be in our process, I 
think it is worth exploring actual cost. But I do agree wholeheartedly that 
we need to understand cost as part of this discussion, at some point.

Lou

---

From: "HANSEN, TONY L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 01:15:02 +0000

An alternative solution to deal with the collection of issues is some sort of conduit connected between github and ietf servers. The issues and their comment list is all part of the git repository and should be able to be pulled across.

As for intermediate versions, IMO we do NOT need to do anything to keep those. The only versions that are important are the ones that get uploaded to the datatracker.

	Tony Hansen

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:38:15 -0500

> An alternative solution to deal with the collection of issues is some sort of conduit connected between github and ietf servers. The issues and their comment list is all part of the git repository…

I like this approach.  It mirrors what we do with youtube (used for
content distribution, but source material and archives are on ???.ietf.org.)

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

Does anyone have any experience with this feature?

> As for intermediate versions, IMO we do NOT need to do anything to keep those. The only versions that are important are the ones that get uploaded to the datatracker.
100% agree.

Thanks,
Lou