W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: Adjustments to our work mode - please read

From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 17:45:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+B8eXXAZhQkvbV9VU2d0XbL73E+L2Ag0bA3O7m01DLVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "Eliot Lear (elear)" <elear@cisco.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
(Sorry, everyone: I'm in all-day meetings for a few days, with limited
time to respond.  Of course, that's when things blow up, innit?)

Folks, we've gotten to the point of more heat than light here.  Mark's
response below is a good one, so let's consider leaving it for now,
modulo some specific suggestions for clarifications.  Here's why:

I want to stress that this is an *experiment* -- not an experiment in
the full-on RFC 3933 sense, but an experiment in running the process
of a single working group in a slightly different way.  Mark (and I)
will be watching how this works and will make sure that the mailing
list still has the information that's needed to keep track of what's
happening and to participate in the decisions.  That said, people who
don't want to get on github should also follow the http-issues list to
keep up with current discussions... which you can then respond to on
*this* list, if, again, you don't want to get on github.

There are two things on the bottom line here:

1. If this doesn't work well, we will stop doing it.

2. If this does work well, we will look at how to do it on a broader
scale, and that will involve more discussion with the community at
large, along with a git repository that's hosted on IETF servers, so
we're not dependent upon github.

The IESG has been talking for some time about how to engage better
with the open source community and with development communities in
general that have become used to collaboration tools other than email.
Trying this out in a limited way with one working group is a way to
see how these sorts of mechanisms can work in the IETF.

Let's give it a try.  Let's see how it goes.  And if we really don't
like it, we can stop -- we might have wound up creating some annoyance
in that case, but we will have also gotten some useful information.

Barry, ART AD


On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> On 7 Oct 2015, at 11:07 am, Eliot Lear (elear) <elear@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> Where at that link do you discuss the interaction with the mailing list or anything else in that message?  Please quote because I can't find it, as I wrote.
>
> The points from my original e-mail were these:
>
>> - Summarise (with links) the design issues closed by each draft when it is announced on this list
>
> From [1]: "When a new draft is published, the design issues that have been closed since the last draft will be highlighted on the mailing list, to aid reviewers."
>
>> - Allow issues to be re-opened when someone brings substantive new information (as always)
>
> From [1]: "If substantive new information is brought to our attention, issues can be reopened by the Chair."
>
>> - Allow those who do not wish to use the issues list to comment on this mailing list
>
> From [1]: "Design issues require discussion and consensus in the Working Group. This discussion can happen both in the issue and on the Working Group mailing list."
>
>> - Provide a separate, announce-only mailing list that is subscribed to every issue change, for those who do not want to use a github account to receive notifications. See: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-issues>
>
> This is not in [1]. Do you think it should be there? I was planning on adding it elsewhere on the site.
>
> So what exactly can't you find -- are you looking for something else that isn't above, or did you just fail to find the link even though I gave the title, or...? Please be as precise as you can, as I'm getting frustrated pointing out the same information to you repeatedly, and I don't *think* you're enjoying this either.
>
> I have no doubt that [1] can be improved -- indeed, after some offline discussion with Ted, there are a number of ways I think we can make it a more friendly and complete document -- especially around how decisions are made (which is more about reminding people how consensus works in the IETF and relating that to the work mode). However, most WGs don't have any such document, so I'm finding it a bit ironic to hear you rail about "transparency."
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 6 Oct 2015, at 11:05 pm, Eliot Lear (elear) <elear@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Honestly if you put up that process on your GitHub home page I'd be satisfied (if it's there I can't find it).  Better to make clear through IETF mechanisms that people from other WGs are used to.
>>>
>>> I explained that in the e-mail that you're responding to:
>>>
>>> """
>>> It is documented, on our WG home page - <https://httpwg.github.io/>, currently linked as "How to Contribute - start here" (as well as from the navigation bar from every page on that site). We regularly show the home page link at our meetings, it's easily found by any search engine, and it's linked from our charter.
>>> """
>>>
>>> If you have suggestions on how to improve the link's visibility, they're welcome.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 00:45:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:39 UTC