What happens to your github/resources when a WG closes?

[tfpauly]

If we use GitHub info for implementation status, what should WGs do when they close?
Should we have designated people who maintain official GitHubs?

[tfpauly]

See: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8875.html#name-working-group-closing

When a working group is closed, the team with administrative access would be removed, and the owner list would be returned to the Secretariat and current ADs at the time of closing. The organization summary and the repositories within the organization would be updated to indicate that they are no longer under development. Later, the owner list could become just the Secretariat, or it might include others chosen by the Secretariat or the IESG.

[mnot]

I don't think that's a great outcome; it makes the repo(s) effectively un-administered, yet still open to discussion, issues and PRs. That could get out of hand quickly.

While the repo(s) could be archived, that cuts off potentially valuable contributions to future revisions, and could negatively impact interop and security because the community has effectively been shut down.

What I'd suggest is that such ex-WG repos be handled somewhat like non-WG mailing lists in the IETF: they live on to foster the community and possibly to incubate the next bis or extension that requires a WG. They have a manager/owner who's chosen by the appropriate AD, to make sure things get done and don't go off the rails.

The tricky part here is communicating that the repo(s) / org is not an official IETF activity while will associating it with the IETF. The simple part is adjusting text on README and similar pages. The harder part is if the repo/org name contains "wg" or similar -- although GitHub makes it easy to rename with clean redirection.

Perhaps that last bit is a reason to reconsider the naming conventions in 8875.