Draft: draft-ietf-git-using-github

Commentary: I agreed to change from DISCUSS to Abstain if this change was made - email thread for the curious / archives : A PR is close enough to integrated for me ... 
 I 'm curious why this change is adequate ; it 's effectively just a rewording . It does n't address the issue of the group choosing to adopt the policies . 
 Yes , it is just a rewording -- but ( for me at least ) it made it enough clearer that this was optional ( WGs can choose to use GH , not WGs are expected to use GH ) that I was willing to move to Abstain instead . The WG has consensus , and the charter sent us down the " GH FTW ! " path - it is n't appropriate for me to block this just because I do n't like it / think there is a better way of using RCS tooling / GH . The process was followed , and the document is valuable - I do n't like the tone , I do n't like the implication , but it now falls into the " Well , that 's just , like , your opinion , man ... " territory . ( There is n't a technical objection , nor do I think it is specifically dangerous to the IETF / IETF stream , so ... ) 
 - OK . This is made moot by the other changes that  made to the draft , but to be clear , I do n't think that 's a good line of argumentation . The WG was charted to an explicit scope - that WGs had to opt into the practices it documented . If it were producing a document that exceeded that scope ( which is arguably did before the recent change referenced above ) , saying that the WG " has consensus " to violate its charter is meaningless , and letting that stand is damaging . That 's because charters allow people to decide whether or not they 're going to follow a WG . If a WG can violate its charter and justify that with " but we had consensus to do so " , charters are meaningless , and the check that requiring IETF consensus places upon WGs is seriously diminished .
Mailing list commentary: Thank you -- I would even be OK with just changing to Abstract to be : " This document describes best practices for Working Groups that choose to use GitHub for their work . " and leave it as BCP . Would that work better for everyone ? It would be enough for me to no longer feel that this is saying that WGs using GitHub is a BCP , but rather that if a WG decided to use GitHub , this is the best way to do so ( I ' m still not sure that this really is the best way , but that 's just my opinion , and I ' m OK being in the rough ) W
Paragraph (version A):
This document describes best practices for Working Groups that use
GitHub for their work.
Paragraph (version B):
This document describes best practices for Working Groups that choose
to use GitHub for their work.
Paragraph (version A):
The main purpose of this document is providing guidelines for how
Working Groups might integrate the capabilities provided by GitHub
into their processes for developing Internet-Drafts.
Paragraph (version B):
The main purpose of this document is providing guidelines for how
Working Groups might integrate the capabilities provided by GitHub
into their processes for developing Internet-Drafts.  The choices of
whether to use GitHub and whether to adopt these practices if they do
is at the discretion of the Working Group.