github_exp_2021_feedback
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| github_exp_2021_feedback [2022/07/20 19:51] – added RFC 9131 feedback jmahoney | github_exp_2021_feedback [2026/02/12 05:44] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ===== Feedback | + | ===== Feedback |
| - | Please see [[github_auth48_experiment]] for context. | + | Please see [[github_exp_8829]] for context. |
| - | ==== RFC 8829 ==== | + | ==== Feedback from Justin Uberti (author) |
| - | + | ||
| - | === Feedback from Justin Uberti (author) === | + | |
| < | < | ||
| Line 72: | Line 70: | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| - | === Feedback from Jean Mahoney (editor during AUTH48) === | + | ==== Feedback from Jean Mahoney (editor during AUTH48) |
| - | == Lessons Learned == | + | === Lessons Learned |
| * The RPC needs to control the repository. | * The RPC needs to control the repository. | ||
| Line 81: | Line 79: | ||
| * Ensure that the appropriate people are " | * Ensure that the appropriate people are " | ||
| - | == High-level thoughts about this round with GitHub == | + | === High-level thoughts about this round with GitHub |
| My biggest surprise - it is not as useful at communicating issues and changes as I thought it would be. One author was unaware of progress, and the AD never received notifications even when he was @mentioned. | My biggest surprise - it is not as useful at communicating issues and changes as I thought it would be. One author was unaware of progress, and the AD never received notifications even when he was @mentioned. | ||
| Line 92: | Line 90: | ||
| Things that I would change next go around - the RPC should control the repo, which would allow us to merge the changes and add the right people as contributors so that they can (maybe) receive notifications (it may be a horse-to-water problem). | Things that I would change next go around - the RPC should control the repo, which would allow us to merge the changes and add the right people as contributors so that they can (maybe) receive notifications (it may be a horse-to-water problem). | ||
| - | |||
| - | ==== RFC 9131 ==== | ||
| - | |||
| - | A questionnaire was sent to the author, AD, and WG chairs. The following is the list of questions and the responses received: | ||
| - | |||
| - | * What were the advantages of using GitHub during AUTH48? | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): | ||
| - | * Being able to see meaningful diffs as text evolved; being able to track issues one by one and review comments on each one separately; being able to see how a pro handle the XML. | ||
| - | * The legacy model of one giant email with all the proposed changes and 5 different authors and their email agents injecting fonts, colors, HTML indentation, | ||
| - | * Jen Linkova (author): It was much easier for me to track all issues. When we were using emails, it was too easy to miss some questions/ | ||
| - | |||
| - | * What were the disadvantages of using GitHub during AUTH48? | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): Needing to setup the alerts to route to my IETF email (this will be necessary for each new repository unless I get wise and try to make some separate github account or something). | ||
| - | * Jen Linkova (author): None I can think of. | ||
| - | |||
| - | * Was communication clear and easy to follow? | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): Yes | ||
| - | * Jen Linkova (author): Yes | ||
| - | |||
| - | * Were there any aspects of communication that were challenging? | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): Just getting repository alerts setup to route to my IETF email (which I see is nicely linked in the README.md). | ||
| - | * Jen Linkova (author): No, all was clear. All issues I had were caused by me not paying enough attention to the documentation ;) | ||
| - | |||
| - | * How may we improve the README.md? | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): (no response) | ||
| - | * Jen Linkova (author): Maybe it would be nice to have a short " | ||
| - | |||
| - | * Were the issues appropriately " | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): Yes | ||
| - | * Jen Linkova (author): Yes | ||
| - | |||
| - | * Were the issue labels helpful (e.g., rfced, question, editor-ready)? | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): Yes | ||
| - | * Jen Linkova (author): | ||
| - | |||
| - | * In particular, did you find the process more efficient than the current email-based process? | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): Yes | ||
| - | * Jen Linkova (author): Yes | ||
| - | |||
| - | * What parts of the process would you like to see changed in a future experiment? | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): (no response) | ||
| - | * Jen Linkova (author): (no response) | ||
| - | |||
| - | * ADs and WG Chairs: Was it easy to track the discussion and resulting updates? | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): Yes | ||
| - | |||
| - | * Please provide any other comments and suggestions for improvement here. | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): (no response) | ||
| - | * Jen Linkova (author): (no response) | ||
| - | |||
| - | * May we quote your replies on a public page documenting the experiment? | ||
| - | * Erik Kline (AD): Yes | ||
| - | * Jen Linkova (author): Yes | ||
github_exp_2021_feedback.1658346698.txt.gz · Last modified: (external edit)