[Infrastructure] Separate GitHub Repositories for Each Working Group

Wayne Thayer wthayer at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 09:46:33 MST 2020

Thanks Ryan - this is helpful.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 9:32 AM Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:16 PM Wayne Thayer <wthayer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> During last week's Infrastructure call, Ben, Jos, and I discussed the
>> proposal to split https://github.com/cabforum/documents/ into separate
>> repositories for each WG's documents.
> FWIW, I tried for 10 minutes to get into the call before giving up. Can we
> get this worked out for the next call? Had the same problem with our prior
> call as well.

No one has been able to start the meeting. Jos is working with the WebEx
team to get his account fixed.

I don't believe that we need to create a ballot to proceed with this
>> change, but I suggested that we should announce the change on the public
>> list and give members a chance to object to it. Here is what I think we
>> want to propose:
>> ================
>> The Infrastructure Subcommittee plans to change the structure of the
>> Forum's GitHub organization to better reflect the evolving structure of the
>> Forum itself.
>> We'll create new repositories under the 'cabforum' organization as
>> follows:
>> - "forum" - contains the Bylaws (and potentially IPR agreement and other
>> Forum level docs)
>> - "servercert" - Charter, BRs, and EVGLs
>> - "code-signing" - Code signing Charter, BRs, and EV code signing
>> guidelines
>> - "smime" - Charter and BRs for S/MIME certificates
>> - "tools" - automation code and other Infrastructure WG files
> "tools" is a bit TBD right now. That's specifically a large scale of work
> (to work out the CI integration and templates and figuring out if we're
> doing cross-repo syncs). So let's just place this as "TBD". I think just
> focusing on the main work products sounds good.
As I wasn't able to make the call, I'm not sure what was discussed for
> cabforum/documents - is that being renamed to that it will automatically
> redirect? I think we should, and should to servercert rather than forum,
> but that wasn't clear.

That makes sense.

Each repo will have access rights specific to the working group (e.g. SCWG
>> members won't be able to approve changes to the SMCWG repo).
> One area that hadn't been worked through is whether or not the Forum
> Infrastructure group (or some subset) will be admins for these repositories
> or not? That has implications here for the statement of permissions, but
> also has implications when we thinking about how publishing will work (e.g.
> shared secrets in the repo config)

Suggest we discuss this on the next call.

Each repo will be configured to enforce reviews before merging a pull
>> request.
> ... into the "main" repository, right?


This change will be accomplished by moving documents from the existing repo
>> into the new ones in such a way that history is preserved (most likely by
>> forking 'documents' and then deleting files that are not in the scope of
>> the new repo).
> This seems like it's gated on the completion of branch cleanup, right, so
> that we don't bring in a ton of junk into new repos?

That seems like a good idea. We should discuss the cleanup on the next call.

- Wayne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20200831/102a5a60/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Infrastructure mailing list