<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902"
docName="draft-ietf-git-using-github-06" number="8874"
submissionType="IETF" category="info" consensus="true" obsoletes=""
updates="" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true"
version="3">
<front>
<title abbrev="GitHub Usage Guidance">Working Group GitHub Usage Guidance</title>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8874"/>
<author initials="M." surname="Thomson" fullname="Martin Thomson">
<organization>Mozilla</organization>
<address>
<email>mt@lowentropy.net</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="B." surname="Stark" fullname="Barbara Stark">
<organization>AT&T</organization>
<address>
<email>barbara.stark@att.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="August" year="2020"/>
<area>General</area>
<workgroup>Network</workgroup>
<keyword>git</keyword>
<keyword>version control</keyword>
<keyword>working group</keyword>
<keyword>document</keyword>
<keyword>editing</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This document provides a set of guidelines for working groups that
choose to use GitHub for their work.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="introduction" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Introduction</name>
<t>The IETF has an open and transparent process for developing standards. The use
of <eref target="https://github.com/">GitHub</eref> or similar tools, when used as part of this process,
can have several objectives. GitHub provides tools that can be helpful in editing documents.
Use of this service has been found to reduce the time that a working group needs
to produce documents and to improve the quality of the final result.</t>
<t>The use of version control improves the traceability and visibility
of changes. Issue tracking can be used to manage open issues and
provide a record of their resolution. Pull requests allow for better
engagement on technical and editorial changes, and encourage
contributions from a larger set of contributors. Using GitHub can also
broaden the community of contributors for a specification.</t>
<t>The main purpose of this document is to provide guidelines for how a
working group might integrate the capabilities provided by GitHub into
their processes for developing Internet-Drafts. Whether to use GitHub
and whether to adopt these practices is left to the discretion of the
working group.</t>
<t>This document is meant as a supplement to existing working group
practices. It provides guidance to working group chairs and
participants on how they can best use GitHub within the framework
established by RFC 2418 <xref target="RFC2418" format="default"/>. This
document aims to establish norms that reduce the variation in usage
patterns between different working groups and to help avoid issues that
have been encountered in the past.</t>
<t>A companion document, <xref target="RFC8875" format="default"/>,
describes administrative processes that support the practices described in this
document.</t>
<t>Although the operation of IRTF research groups can be similar in
function to working groups, this document only directly addresses the
needs of working groups. However, other groups may draw inspiration for
GitHub use from the contents herein.</t>
<section anchor="distributed-version-control-systems" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Distributed Version Control Systems</name>
<t>Version control systems are a critical component of software
engineering and are also quite useful for document editing.</t>
<t><eref target="https://git-scm.com/">Git</eref> is a distributed
version control system that can operate without a central service.
Each instance of a repository contains a number of revisions. Each
revision stores the complete state of a set of files. Users are able
to create new revisions in their copy of a repository and share
revisions between copies of repositories.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="github" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>GitHub</name>
<t>GitHub is a service operated at <<eref
target="https://github.com/"/>>. GitHub provides centralized
storage for Git repositories. GitHub is freely accessible on the open
Internet.</t>
<t>GitHub provides a simplified and integrated interface to Git and
also provides basic user management, an issue tracker, associated
wikis, project hosting, and other features.</t>
<t>There are a large number of projects at GitHub and a very large
community of contributors.
One way in which some IETF working groups have benefited from use of the
service is through increased numbers of reviews of the document and associated
issues, along with other improvements that come from facilitating
participation by a broader community.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="other-services" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Other Services</name>
<t>Git is not the only version control system available, nor is GitHub
the only possible choice for hosting. There are other services that
host revision control repositories and provide similar additional
features as GitHub. For instance, <eref
target="https://bitbucket.org/">BitBucket</eref> and <eref
target="https://about.gitlab.com/">GitLab</eref> provide similar
feature sets. In addition to a hosted service, software for custom
installations exists.</t>
<t>This document concentrates primarily on GitHub as it has a large
and active community of contributors. As a result, some content might
not be applicable to other similar services. A working group that
decides to adopt an alternative tool or service can still benefit from
the general guidance in this document.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="document-goals" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Document Goals</name>
<t>This document aims to describe how a working group might best apply
GitHub to their work. The intent is to allow each working group
considerable flexibility in how they use GitHub.</t>
<t>This document requires that policies for use of GitHub are agreed
upon and clearly communicated within the working group (see <xref
target="policy" format="default"/>). The remainder of the document
contains guidelines and advice on how to construct a workable
policy.</t>
<t>The requirements here apply to the case where a working group
decides to use GitHub as a primary means of interaction. Individuals
can set their own policies when using GitHub for managing their own
drafts or for managing drafts that they edit on behalf of a working
group that has not explicitly adopted GitHub.</t>
<t>For both sets of users, this document aims to provide some amount
of advice on practices that have been effective.</t>
<t>This document only aims to address use of GitHub in developing
documents. A working group could choose to use the tool to aid in
managing their charter or session materials such as agendas, minutes,
and presentations. Though the advice here might apply more broadly,
using GitHub to manage other material is out of scope for this
document.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="notational-conventions" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Notational Conventions</name>
<t>
The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are
to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/>
<xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
as shown here.
</t>
<t>This document uses a lot of terms related to Git and GitHub; see
<xref target="GLOSSARY" format="default"/> for information on these
terms.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="policy" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Administrative Policies</name>
<t>The following administrative rules provide the necessary oversight
and transparency.</t>
<section anchor="organizations" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Organizations</name>
<t>Organizations are a way of forming groups of contributors on
GitHub. The working group <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> create a new
organization for its work. A working group organization
<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be named consistently so that it can be found.
For instance, the name could be ietf-wg-<wgname>, as recommended
in <xref target="RFC8875"
format="default"/>.</t>
<t>A single organization <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> be used for all
IETF activity or all activity within an area. Large organizations
create too much overhead for general management tasks.</t>
<t>GitHub requires that each organization have at least one owner.
The owners for a working group repository <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include
responsible area directors and the IETF Secretariat. Working group
chairs <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> also be included as owners. Area
directors <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> also designate a delegate that becomes an
owner, such as another area director from the same area. An
organization <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> have at least two owners.</t>
<t>Within an organization, members can be grouped into teams. A team
with "Admin" access to repositories <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be created
for the working group chairs and any working group secretary.</t>
<t>Details about creating organizations adhering to these guidelines can be found
in <xref target="RFC8875" format="default"/>.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="notices" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Communicating Policies</name>
<t>Each working group <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> set its own policy as to
whether and how it uses GitHub. It is important that occasional
participants in the working group and others accustomed to IETF tools be able to
determine this and easily find the policy and GitHub organization.</t>
<t>A simple example of how to do this is to include a link to the
GitHub organization on the working group charter page in the datatracker.
Similarly, if there are additional resources, such as mailing lists,
links to those resources could also be added.</t>
<t>Repositories <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include a copy of or reference to
the policy that applies to managing any documents they contain.
Updating the README or CONTRIBUTING file in the repository with
details of the process ensures that the process is recorded in a
stable location other than the mailing list archive. This also makes
working group policies available to casual contributors who might only
interact with the GitHub repository.</t>
<t>GitHub prominently links to the CONTRIBUTING file on certain pages.
This file <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be used in preference to the README
for information that new contributors need. The README
<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> contain a link to the CONTRIBUTING file.</t>
<t>In addition to working group policies, notices on repositories
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include citations for the <eref
target="https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/">IETF Note
Well</eref>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="deciding-to-use-github" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Deciding to Use GitHub</name>
<t>Working group chairs are responsible for determining how to best
accomplish the charter objectives in an open and transparent fashion.
The working group chairs are responsible for determining if there is
interest in using GitHub and for making a consensus call about whether
the proposed policy and use is acceptable.</t>
<t>Chairs <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> involve area directors in any decision
to use GitHub, especially where substantive discussion of issues is
permitted as described in <xref target="mode-discuss"
format="default"/>.</t>
<section anchor="usage" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>What to Use GitHub For</name>
<t>Working group chairs decide what GitHub features the working group
will rely upon. <xref target="features" format="default"/> contains a
more thorough discussion on the different features that can be
used.</t>
<t>Working group chairs who decide to use GitHub <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
inform the working group of their decision on the working group
mailing list. An email detailing how the working group intends to use
GitHub is sufficient, though it might be helpful to occasionally
remind new contributors of these guidelines.</t>
<t>Working group chairs are responsible for ensuring that any policy
they adopt is enforced and maintained.</t>
<t>The set of GitHub features (<xref target="features"
format="default"/>) that the working group relies upon need to be
clearly documented in policies. This document provides some guidance
on potential policies and how those might be applied.</t>
<t>Features that the working group does not rely upon can be made
available to document editors. Editors are then able to use these
features for their own purposes. For example, though the working
group might not formally use issues to track items that require
further discussion in order to reach consensus, keeping the issue
tracker available to editors can be valuable.</t>
<t>Working group policies need to be set with the goal of improving
transparency, participation, and ultimately the quality of documents.
At times, it might be appropriate to impose some limitations on what
document editors are able to do in order to serve these goals. Chairs
are encouraged to periodically consult with document editors to ensure
that policies are effective.</t>
<t>A document editor can still use GitHub independently for documents
that they edit, even if the working group does not expressly choose to
use GitHub. Any such public repository <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow the
IETF Note Well and bear notices; see <xref target="notices"
format="default"/>. This recognizes that editors have traditionally
chosen their own methods for managing the documents they edit but
preserves the need for contributors to understand their obligations
with respect to IETF processes.</t>
<t>Work done in GitHub has no special status. The output of any
activity using GitHub needs to be taken to the working group and is
subject to approval, rejection, or modification by the working group
as with any other input.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="repositories" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Repositories</name>
<t>New repositories can be created within the working group
organization at the discretion of the chairs. Chairs could decide to
only create new repositories for adopted working group items, or they
might create repositories for individual documents on request.</t>
<t>Maintaining private repositories for working group products is not
recommended without specific cause. For instance, a document that
details a security vulnerability might be kept private prior to its
initial publication as an Internet-Draft. Once an Internet-Draft is
published, repositories for working group documents
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be made public.</t>
<t>The adoption status of any document <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be clear
from the contents of the repository. This can be achieved by having
the name of the document reflect status (that is,
draft-ietf-<wgname>-... indicates that the document was
adopted) or through a prominent notice (such as in the README).</t>
<t>Experience has shown that maintaining separate repositories for
independent documents is most manageable. This allows the work in
that repository to be focused on a single item.</t>
<t>Closely related documents, such as those that together address a
single milestone, might be placed in a single repository. This allows
editors to more easily manage changes and issues that affect multiple
documents.</t>
<t>Maintaining multiple documents in the same repository can add
overhead that negatively affects individual documents. For instance,
issues might require additional markings to identify the document that
they affect. Also, because editors all have write access to the
repository, managing the set of people with write access to a larger
repository is more difficult (<xref target="editors"
format="default"/>).</t>
</section>
<section anchor="editors" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Editors and Contributors</name>
<t>Working group chairs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> give document editors
write access to document repositories. This can be done by creating
teams with write access and allocating editors to those teams or by
making editors collaborators on the repository.</t>
<t>Working group chairs <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> also grant other
individuals write access for other reasons such as maintaining
supporting code or build configurations. Working group chairs, as
administrators or owners of the organization, might also have write
access to repositories.
Users other than document editors, including chairs, <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>
make changes to working group documents without prior coordination with
document editors.</t>
<t>A working group <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> create a team for regular
contributors that is only given read access to a repository. This does
not confer additional privileges on these contributors; it instead
allows for issues and pull requests to be assigned to those people.
This can be used to manage the assignment of editorial or review tasks
to individuals outside of the editor team.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="document-formats" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Document Formats</name>
<t>In addition to the canonical XML format <xref target="RFC7991"
format="default"/>, document editors might choose to use a different
input form for editing documents, such as Markdown. Markdown-based
formats are more accessible for new contributors, though ultimately,
decisions about format are left to document editors.</t>
<t>Formats that are not text-based <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> be used,
as these are ill-disposed to the sorts of interaction that revision
control enables.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="features" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Contribution Methods</name>
<t>Contributions to documents come in many forms. GitHub provides a
range of options in addition to email. Input on GitHub can take the
form of new issues and pull requests, comments on issues and pull
requests, and comments on commits.</t>
<section anchor="issue-tracker" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Issue Tracker</name>
<t>The GitHub issue tracker can be an effective way of managing the
set of open issues on a document. Issues, both open and closed, can
be a useful way of recording decisions made by a working group.</t>
<t>Issues can be given arbitrary labels, assigned to contributors, and
assembled into milestones. The issue tracker is integrated into the
repository; an issue can be closed using a special marker in a commit
message.</t>
<t>When deciding to use GitHub, working group chairs
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> decide how the GitHub issue tracker is used. Use
of the issue tracker could be limited to recording the existence of
issues, or it might be used as the venue for substantial technical
discussion between contributors.</t>
<t>A working group policy <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> require that all
substantive changes be tracked using issues. Suggested policies for
the use of the GitHub issue tracker are the primary subject of <xref
target="modes" format="default"/>.</t>
<section anchor="issue-labels" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Issue Labels</name>
<t>A system of labeling issues can be effective in managing issues.
For instance, marking substantive issues separately from editorial
can be helpful at guiding discussion. Using labels can also be
helpful in identifying issues for which consensus has been achieved
but that require editors to integrate the changes into a
document.</t>
<t>Labels can be used to identify particular categories of issues or
to mark specific issues for discussion at an upcoming session.</t>
<t>Chairs communicate any process that specifically relates to the
use of labels to the working group. This includes the semantics of
labels, and who can apply and remove these labels. <xref
target="labels" format="default"/> describes some basic strategies
that might be adopted to manage decision-making processes.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="closing-issues" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Closing Issues</name>
<t>Editors have write access to repositories, which also allows them
to close issues. The user that opens an issue is also able to close
the issue. Chairs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> provide guidance on who is
permitted to close an issue and under what conditions.</t>
<t>Restrictions on who can close an issue and under what
circumstances are generally not advisable until a document has
reached a certain degree of maturity.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="reopening-issues" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Reopening Issues</name>
<t>Issues that have reached a resolution that has working group
consensus <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be reopened unless new information
is presented.</t>
<t>For long-running work items, new contributors often raise issues
that have already been resolved. Moreover, there could be temptation
to reopen contentious issues resolved with rough
consensus. Determining whether arguments presented in favor of
reopening an issue represents new information might require some
discussion in the working group.</t>
<t>Chairs are empowered to exercise discretion in determining
whether or not to reopen issues. For more difficult matters, the chairs
<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> insist that the working group reach consensus on
whether an issue should be reopened. Note, however, that any product
of this process still needs to have the support of rough consensus
in the working group, which could justify reopening issues.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="pull-requests" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Pull Requests</name>
<t>A pull request is a GitHub feature that allows a user to request a change to a
repository. A user does not need to have write access to a repository to create
a pull request. A user can create a "fork", or copy, of any public repository.
The user has write access to their own fork, allowing them to make local
changes. A pull request asks the owner of a repository to merge a specific set
of changes from a fork (or any branch) into their copy.</t>
<t>Editors are encouraged to make pull requests for all substantial
changes rather than committing directly to the "primary" branch of the
repository. See <xref target="mature-documents" format="default"/> for
discussion on what constitutes a substantial change. A pull request
creates an artifact that records the reasons for changes and provides
other contributors with an opportunity to review the change. Ideally,
pull requests that address substantive issues mention the issue they
address in the opening comment. A working group policy could require
that pull requests be used in this fashion.</t>
<aside><t>Note: This document assumes that there is a unified effort on a
document, all concentrated on a single Git branch. More advanced usage of Git
is not in the scope of this document.</t>
</aside>
<t>Pull requests have many of the same properties as issues, including
the ability to host discussion and bear labels. Critically, using
pull requests creates a record of actions taken.</t>
<t>For significant changes, leaving a pull request open until
discussion of the issue within the working group concludes allows the
pull request to track the discussion and properly capture the outcome
of discussions. Pull requests can be updated as discussions continue,
or in response to feedback.</t>
<t>Groups of editors could adopt a practice of having one editor
create a pull request and another merge it. This ensures that changes
are reviewed by editors. Editors are given discretion in how they
manage changes amongst themselves.</t>
<section anchor="discussion-on-pull-requests" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Discussion on Pull Requests</name>
<t>In addition to the features that pull requests share with issues,
users can also review the changes in a pull request. This is a
valuable feature, but it presents some challenges.</t>
<t>Comments in a review other than a summary are attached to
specific lines of the proposed change. Such comments can be hard or
impossible to find if changes are subsequently made to the pull
request. This is problematic for contributors who do not track
discussions closely.</t>
<t>For this reason, working group chairs <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>
discourage the use of inline comments for substantial technical
discussion of issues.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="merging-pull-requests" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Merging Pull Requests</name>
<t>A working group <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> determine who is permitted to
merge pull requests. Document editors <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be
permitted to merge pull requests at their discretion. This requires
that editors exercise some judgment. Working group chairs
<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> occasionally identify a pull request and request
that editors withhold merging until working group consensus has been
assessed.</t>
<t>Note that the copy of a document that is maintained on GitHub
does not need to be a perfect reflection of working group consensus
at every point in time. Document editors need some flexibility in
how they manage a document.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="monitoring-activity" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Monitoring Activity</name>
<t>GitHub produces individualized email notifications of activity that
each user can adjust to their preferences. In addition to these, some
working groups have created read-only mailing lists that receive
notifications about activity on working group repositories. The
volume of information on these lists can be too high to monitor
actively, but access to an archive of actions can be useful.</t>
<t>An alternative is to rely on periodic email summaries of activity,
such as those produced by a notification tool like <eref
target="https://github.com/dontcallmedom/github-notify-ml">github-notify-ml</eref>.
This tool has been used effectively in several working groups, though
it requires server infrastructure.</t>
<t>Additionally, clear reporting about the changes that were included
in each revision of an Internet-Draft helps ensure that contributors
can follow activity. This might be achieved by requesting that
editors provide a change log that captures substantive changes to the
document in each revision.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="modes" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Typical Working Group Policies</name>
<t>Current experience with use of GitHub suggests a few different
approaches to greater use of the tool in working groups.</t>
<t>This section describes some basic modes for interacting with GitHub,
each progressively more involved. This starts with a very lightweight
interaction where document management is the only feature that is
formally used; then, progressively more intensive use of the GitHub issue
tracking capabilities is described. These approaches differ primarily
in how discussion of substantive matters is managed. Most of the advice
in this document applies equally to all models.</t>
<t>Working groups can adjust these policies to suit their needs but
are advised to avoid gratuitous changes for the sake of consistency
across the IETF as a whole. It is possible to use different processes
for different documents in the working group.</t>
<t>Working group chairs are responsible for confirming that the working
group has consensus to adopt any process. In particular, the
introduction of a more tightly controlled process can have the effect of
privileging positions already captured in documents, which might
disadvantage alternative viewpoints.</t>
<section anchor="mode-doc" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Document Management Mode</name>
<t>In this mode of interaction, GitHub repositories are used to manage
changes to documents, but the bulk of the work is conducted using
email, face-to-face meetings, and other more traditional interactions.
The intent of this policy is to enable document and issue management
using GitHub while minimizing the complexity of the process.</t>
<t>In the version of this mode with the least interaction with GitHub,
a repository is created for the purposes of document management by
editors. Editors might maintain issues and pull requests for their
own benefit, but these have no formal standing in the working group
process.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="mode-track" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Issue Tracking Mode</name>
<t>In addition to managing documents, the working group might choose
to use GitHub for tracking outstanding issues. In this mode of
interaction, a record of the existence of substantive technical
discussions is tracked using issues in the issue tracker. However,
discussion of any substantial matters is always conducted on mailing
lists.</t>
<t>Under this mode, issues and pull requests can be opened by anyone,
but anything deemed substantive <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be resolved
exclusively on the mailing list. Discussion on GitHub is limited to
recording the state of issues. Only editorial matters can be resolved
using the issue tracker.</t>
<t>Chairs and editors are given discretion in determining what issues
are substantive. As documents mature, it is generally prudent to
prefer consulting the mailing list where there is doubt. As with
other working group decisions, chairs are the arbiters in case of
dispute.</t>
<t>A recurrent problem with this mode of interaction is the tendency
for discussions to spontaneously develop in the issue tracker. This
requires a degree of discipline from chairs and editors to ensure that
any substantive matters are taken to the mailing list.</t>
<t>Retaining mailing lists as the primary venue for discussion of
substantive matters ensures that this mode, along with the document
management mode, is most compatible with existing work practices for
working groups. Participants in a working group that operates under
either model can reasonably be expected to receive all relevant
communication about the work of the group from the working group
mailing list.</t>
<t>Though the mailing list is used for making decisions, the issue
tracker can still be a useful record of the state of issues. It is
often useful if chairs or editors record details of decisions in issue
comments when closing issues as resolved.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="mode-discuss" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Issue Discussion Mode</name>
<t>This GitHub interaction mode differs from the other modes in that
discussion relating to substantive technical matters is allowed to
occur on GitHub issues. Though decisions are always subject to
confirmation on the mailing list, participants are permitted to
conduct substantive discussions on the issue tracker. In some cases,
this can include making some decisions without involving the working
group mailing list.</t>
<t>A working group mailing list remains a critical venue for decision
making, even where issue discussion occurs elsewhere. Working group
mailing lists generally include a wider audience than those who follow
issue discussion, so difficult issues always benefit from list
discussion.</t>
<t>Decisions about working group consensus <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> always
be confirmed using the working group mailing list. However, depending
on the maturity of documents, this might be a more lightweight
interaction such as sending an email confirmation for an initial set
of resolutions arising from discussions on the issue tracker.</t>
<t>Using the mailing list to resolve difficult or controversial issues
is strongly encouraged. In those cases, the issue tracker might be
used to more fully develop an understanding of problems before
initiating a discussion on the mailing list, along lines similar to
the design team process (see <xref target="RFC2418" sectionFormat="of"
section="6.5"/>).</t>
<t>As a more involved process, adopting this mode can require changes in policies
as documents become more mature.</t>
<section anchor="early-design-phases" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Early Design Phases</name>
<t>During early phases of the design of a protocol, chairs
<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> allow editors to manage all aspects of issues.
Editors are permitted to make decisions about how to both identify
and resolve technical issues, including making any changes that
editors feel necessary.</t>
<t>
The primary reason to grant editors more discretionary power is to improve the
speed with which changes can be made. In many cases, documents that are
adopted by a working group are already sufficiently mature, and a looser
process is not beneficial. A looser process increases the risk of missing
issues that need working group consensus and integrating substantive changes
based on decisions that don't reflect the consensus of the working group.
</t>
<t>Changes made by editors under this process do not lack options
for identifying and correcting problems. GitHub and Git provide
tools for ensuring that changes are tracked and can be audited.
Within the usual working group process, it is expected that
Internet-Drafts will receive regular review. Also, process
checkpoints like Working Group Last Call (WGLC; <xref
target="RFC2418" sectionFormat="of" section="7.4"/>) provide
additional safeguards against abuse.</t>
<t>Working groups are advised against allowing editors this degree
of flexibility for the entirety of a document life cycle. Once a
document is more stable and mature, it could be useful to move to a
more tightly controlled process.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="mature-documents" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Managing Mature Documents</name>
<t>As a document matures, it becomes more important to understand
not just that the document as a whole retains the support of the
working group, but that changes are not made without wider
consultation.</t>
<t>Chairs <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> choose to manage the process of
deciding which issues are substantive. For instance, chairs might
reserve the ability to use the <tt>design</tt> label for new issues
(see <xref target="label-design" format="default"/>) and to close
issues marked as <tt>design</tt>. Chairs <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>
always allow document editors to identify and address editorial
issues as they see fit.</t>
<t>As documents mature further, explicit confirmation of technical
decisions with the working group mailing list becomes more
important.</t>
<t>Chairs can declare working group consensus regarding the
resolution of issues in the abstract, allowing editors discretion on
how to capture the decisions in documents.</t>
<t>More mature documents require not only consensus, but consensus
about specific text. Ideally, substantive changes to documents that
have passed WGLC are proposed as pull requests and
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be discussed on the mailing list. Having chairs
explicitly confirm consensus on changes ensures that previous
consensus decisions are not overturned without cause. Chairs
<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> institute this stricter process prior to
WGLC.</t>
<aside><t>Note: It is generally sufficient to trust editors to
manage adherence with these policies, aided by the transparency
provided by the version control system. There are tools that can be
used to more tightly control access to repositories, but they can be
overly constraining.</t>
</aside>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="labels" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Issue Labeling Schemes</name>
<t>Several schemes for use of issue labels in managing issues have
been used successfully. This section outlines these strategies and
how they might be applied.</t>
<t>A design/editorial split (see <xref target="label-design"
format="default"/>) is useful in all cases in which the issue tracking
capability is used. A working group that only uses GitHub for issue
tracking might find that distinction sufficient for their needs.</t>
<t>Working groups or editors might use additional labels as they
choose. Any label that is used as part of a process requires that the
process be documented and announced by working group chairs. Editors
<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be permitted to use labels to manage issues
without any formal process significance being attached to those
issues.</t>
<section anchor="label-design" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Editorial/Design Labeling</name>
<t>The most important distinction about an issue is whether it is
substantive. The labels of <tt>editorial</tt> and <tt>design</tt>
are used to represent this distinction.</t>
<t>An issue labeled as <tt>editorial</tt> has no substantive effect
on a document except to the extent that addressing the issue might
make understanding the specification easier. Resolution of
<tt>editorial</tt> issues can be left to the discretion of
editors.</t>
<t>An issue labeled as <tt>design</tt> has or might have a
substantive effect on a document. For protocol specifications, a
<tt>design</tt> issue is one that might affect implementations or
interoperability requirements. Addressing a <tt>design</tt> issue
ultimately requires working group consensus, even if the resolution
is to make no change.</t>
<t>This distinction can be applied to all types of documents. For
instance, a <tt>design</tt> issue for an Informational document
might be raised to discuss possible changes to important concepts in
the document.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="label-decision" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Decision Labeling</name>
<t>Labels can be used to manage processes. As documents mature and
issues become more numerous, labels can be used to clearly mark the
status of issues. In particular, the labeling of issues can be used to
help manage working group decisions.</t>
<t>For documents that are less mature, issues with resolutions but
no specific proposals for changes to text might be marked
<tt>editor-ready</tt> as a way of signaling that there is consensus
on an approach, but no specific proposal. Chairs might use this to
signal that discussion is complete and that editors are to be given
discretion in the construction of text.</t>
<t>In contrast, if specific text is a prerequisite for resolving
issues, as might be the case for more mature documents, a
<tt>proposal-ready</tt> label might be used by editors to mark
issues that they believe to have acceptable resolutions.</t>
<t>For resolved issues, a <tt>has-consensus</tt> label might be used by chairs to mark
issues for which formal working group decisions have been made (<xref
target="RFC2418" sectionFormat="of" section="6.1"/>).</t>
<t>A <tt>future</tt> or <tt>next-version</tt> label might be used to
mark and thereby save issues for a future version of, or extension to,
a protocol, particularly where a resolution is made to take no
action.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="component-labelling" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Component Labeling</name>
<t>Repositories with multiple interrelated documents or a complex document with
multiple logical components might benefit from labels that identify different
aspects of the work. The choice of appropriate labels for components will
depend on the structure of specific documents.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="other-labels" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Other Labels</name>
<t>Other labels can be used depending on the needs of editors and
working group processes. For example,</t>
<ul spacing="normal">
<li>An <tt>invalid</tt> label might be used for issues that were raised in error.</li>
<li>A <tt>blocked</tt> label might indicate an issue is awaiting
resolution of an external process or related issue.</li>
<li>A <tt>parked</tt> label might be used to indicate issues that
do not require immediate working group attention.</li>
</ul>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="internet-draft-publication" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Internet-Draft Publication</name>
<t>During the development of a document, individual revisions of the
document can be built and formally submitted as an Internet-Draft. This
creates a stable snapshot and makes the content of the in-progress
document available to a wider audience. Documents submitted as
Internet-Drafts are not expected to address all open issues or merge
outstanding pull requests.</t>
<t><xref target="RFC2418" sectionFormat="of" section="7.1"/> recommends
that editors create a new Internet-Draft submission two weeks prior to
every session, which includes IETF meetings, other in-person meetings,
and telephone or video conferences. Though discussion could use the
current version of a document from version control, participants in a
session cannot be expected to monitor changes to documents in real time;
a published Internet-Draft ensures that there is a common, stable state
that is known to all participants.</t>
<t>Internet-Drafts that use a GitHub repository <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>
include a notice that includes a reference to the repository. This
notice might also include information about where to discuss the
draft.</t>
<t>Revisions used to generate documents that are submitted as
Internet-Drafts <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be tagged in repositories to
provide a record of submissions.</t>
<t>Working group chairs <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> request a revision of an
Internet-Draft being managed on GitHub at any time, in consultation with
document editors.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="assessing-consensus" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Assessing Consensus</name>
<t>The work that occurs on GitHub could be part of the consensus
process, but the ultimate decision on consensus regarding a document is
made by the chairs <xref target="RFC2026" format="default"/>.</t>
<t>GitHub facilitates more involved interactions, which can result in a
much higher level of activity than a typical working group mailing list.
Participants who wish to limit their time commitment might follow GitHub
activity selectively, either by following only specific issues or by
occasionally reviewing the state of the document. Other participants
might not use GitHub at all. Chairs are reminded that assessing
consensus based on GitHub content alone cannot be assumed to reach all
interested participants.</t>
<t>As described in <xref target="RFC2418" format="default"/>, chairs
consider input from all discussion venues when assessing
consensus. These include mailing lists, IETF meetings, and interim
meetings in addition to discussion on GitHub. Each venue has different
selection biases that might need to be considered.</t>
<t>A working group chair <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> consult the working group
mailing list for any issue that is potentially contentious. Relying on
input provided through GitHub alone might result in gaining input from a
narrower set of participants. This includes important milestones like
Working Group Last Call, where review from the widest possible audience
ensures a higher quality document.</t>
<t>If permitted, GitHub will be used for technical discussion and
decisions, especially during early stages of development of a document.
Any decisions are confirmed through review within the working group and,
ultimately, through Working Group Last Call; see <xref target="RFC2418"
sectionFormat="of" section="7.4"/>.</t>
<t>The use of issues and labels has been effective in managing
contentious issues. Explicitly labeling closed issues to identify those
with formal consensus means that there is no confusion about the status
of issues.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="continuous-integration" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Continuous Integration</name>
<t>Various third-party services offer the ability to run tests and other
work when changes are made to a repository.</t>
<t>One common practice is to use these continuous integration services
to build a text or HTML version of a document. This is then published
to GitHub Pages, which allows users to view a version of the most recent
revision of a document. Including a prominent link to this version of
the document (such as in the README) makes it easier for new
contributors to find a readable copy of the most recent version of a
draft. In addition, including links to differences between this
generated version and any published document helps contributors identify
recent changes.</t>
<t>Continuous integration can also validate pull requests and other
changes for errors. The most basic check is whether the source
file can be transformed successfully into a valid Internet-Draft. For
example, this might include checking that the XML source is syntactically
correct.</t>
<t>For a document that uses formal languages as part of the
specification, such as schema or source code, a continuous integration
system might also be used to validate any formal language that the
document contains. Tests for any source code that the document contains
might be run, or examples might be checked for correctness.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="advice-to-editors" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Advice to Editors</name>
<t>Document editors are primarily responsible for maintaining documents. Taking on
a few additional tasks can greatly improve the process for the working group.</t>
<t>Using GitHub means that it is more likely that a contribution is made by users
who are not very familiar with the work. Pull requests from new contributors can
contain errors or omissions. Duplicate issues are commonplace. Proposed
changes might have grammatical errors or they might diverge from existing style.
If a change is generally sound, rather than rejecting the pull request or
requesting changes, editors could instead accept the change and then make any
necessary corrections.</t>
<t>Editors <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> close a pull request or issue without first understanding why
the item was created. Editors and chairs <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> try to explain every action
clearly and concisely. Even if a contributor seems rude, being courteous in response is
always best.</t>
<t>If a contributor makes a comment that raises a new issue, editors can
create an issue or, if there is an obvious solution, a pull request.
It does not matter what venue the issue was raised in (e.g., email,
issue discussion, a pull request review); capturing issues quickly
ensures that problems become visible and can be tracked.</t>
<t>This takes a little more effort, but these simple steps can help encourage
contributions, which will ultimately improve the quality of documents.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Security Considerations</name>
<t>Continuity of operations is always a consideration when taking a
dependency on an external service. If GitHub were to fail in some way,
anyone relying upon its services would be seriously affected.</t>
<t>Widespread use of Git reduces the exposure to a system failure because the
primary repository is replicated in multiple locations. This includes hosted
web pages; the content of web pages is maintained as a branch in the main
repository.</t>
<t>However, other information maintained on GitHub is more vulnerable to
loss. This includes issues and discussion on those issues, discussion
and reviews of commits and pull requests, and any content hosted on the
wiki. Tools exist for extracting this information for backup.</t>
<t>As specified in <xref target="RFC8875"
format="default"/>, backup copies of repositories and other important
data <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be maintained.</t>
<t>The potential for malicious actions by compromised or malcontent
editors, chairs, and area directors is relevant in maintaining the
integrity of the content that GitHub hosts. Backups allow for recovery
of content, and regular submissions as Internet-Drafts ensure that work
is not lost completely.</t>
<t>A compromise of GitHub does not pose a significant threat to
working group operations as it is expected that most data, aside from
individual credentials, is made public.</t>
<t>A compromise of credentials could mean loss of control for
repositories an organizations. All contributors, especially those with
commit or admin privileges <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> use current best
practices for protection of credentials, such as multi-factor
authentication.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="iana-considerations" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>IANA Considerations</name>
<t>This document has no IANA actions.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references>
<name>References</name>
<references>
<name>Normative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2418.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2026.xml"/>
</references>
<references>
<name>Informative References</name>
<reference anchor="GLOSSARY"
target="https://help.github.com/en/github/getting-started-with-github/github-glossary">
<front>
<title>GitHub glossary</title>
<author>
<organization>GitHub</organization>
</author>
<date year="2020" month="March"/>
</front>
</reference>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7991.xml"/>
<reference anchor="RFC8875" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8875">
<front>
<title>Working Group GitHub Administration</title>
<author initials="A." surname="Cooper" fullname="A. Cooper">
<organization />
</author>
<author initials="P." surname="Hoffman" fullname="P. Hoffman">
<organization />
</author>
<date month="August" year="2020" />
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8875" />
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8875"/>
</reference>
</references>
</references>
<section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments" toc="default">
<name>Acknowledgments</name>
<t>This work would not have been possible without the hard work of those
people who have trialed the use of GitHub at the IETF. <contact
fullname="Alia Atlas"/> contributed significant text to an earlier
draft version of this document. <contact fullname="Tommy Pauly"/>, <contact
fullname="Rich Salz"/>, and <contact fullname="Christopher Wood"/> all
provided significant input.</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>