From d310b77b0eecbddc899053a7b77ab45f94153b63 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Katherine Sharpless Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:27:54 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Create NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance --- NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) create mode 100644 NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance diff --git a/NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance b/NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3c27528 --- /dev/null +++ b/NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +Re: who may have administrative and write access + +NIST currently allows non-DOC collaborators for read-only membership to public and private GitHub repositories. These non-DOC collaborators include researchers from other federal agencies, national laboratories, and universities, as well as international collaborators. Many times, these collaborators will have spent months or years at NIST as research associates and continue to work with us when they return home. Each need for a private repository and non-NIST collaborators is unique. Our collaborators expect to be treated equally with DOC research team members. It is an integral and routine part of the scientific collaboration process and allows NIST to fulfill its mission, helping to shape and improve our research program. + +Re: approval steps + +We used the DOC Social Media Application to register our first account and review the GitHub government terms of service. Requiring all users to register with the DOC social media tracking application may be an unnecessary administrative burden on staff using GitHub at NIST. We allow personal accounts. It is common practice in the scientific and technical community to use personal accounts on social media to discuss work-related technical topics. This is also consistent with the DOC Public Communications Policy. Our rules of behavior do stipulate that a nist.gov email address must be associated with USNISTGOV repos in the account notification center. We require division chief, supervisor, and ITSO approval and also require that a PI be associated with every repository as a single point of contact for the public. Another reason to use existing GitHub accounts is to promote existing repos associated with our users; some are prolific GitHub users with related scientific software. + +Re: posting DOC content to GitHub public repositories + +NIST requires that GitHub never be the single source for any data project; this is normally how Git works as a local copy is required for development. This negates the need for quarterly downloads as suggested. Again, we do not currently record GitHub repository in the DOC Social Media Application Tracking System. Could we comply by creating an annual report for DOC and updating the Tracking System on an annual basis? From 99a81d7296347a3578ec97594a80e20b66e02191 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Katherine Sharpless Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:38:20 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Rename NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance to NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance.md --- ...DOC GitHub Guidance => NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance.md | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) rename NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance => NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance.md (100%) diff --git a/NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance b/NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance.md similarity index 100% rename from NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance rename to NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance.md From 064bfb30f792aa1f7d19d684b6819a31f6699c53 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Katherine Sharpless Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:39:42 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Update NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance.md --- NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance.md | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance.md b/NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance.md index 3c27528..d14e939 100644 --- a/NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance.md +++ b/NIST Comments to DOC GitHub Guidance.md @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@ -Re: who may have administrative and write access +**Re: who may have administrative and write access** NIST currently allows non-DOC collaborators for read-only membership to public and private GitHub repositories. These non-DOC collaborators include researchers from other federal agencies, national laboratories, and universities, as well as international collaborators. Many times, these collaborators will have spent months or years at NIST as research associates and continue to work with us when they return home. Each need for a private repository and non-NIST collaborators is unique. Our collaborators expect to be treated equally with DOC research team members. It is an integral and routine part of the scientific collaboration process and allows NIST to fulfill its mission, helping to shape and improve our research program. -Re: approval steps +**Re: approval steps** We used the DOC Social Media Application to register our first account and review the GitHub government terms of service. Requiring all users to register with the DOC social media tracking application may be an unnecessary administrative burden on staff using GitHub at NIST. We allow personal accounts. It is common practice in the scientific and technical community to use personal accounts on social media to discuss work-related technical topics. This is also consistent with the DOC Public Communications Policy. Our rules of behavior do stipulate that a nist.gov email address must be associated with USNISTGOV repos in the account notification center. We require division chief, supervisor, and ITSO approval and also require that a PI be associated with every repository as a single point of contact for the public. Another reason to use existing GitHub accounts is to promote existing repos associated with our users; some are prolific GitHub users with related scientific software. -Re: posting DOC content to GitHub public repositories +**Re: posting DOC content to GitHub public repositories** NIST requires that GitHub never be the single source for any data project; this is normally how Git works as a local copy is required for development. This negates the need for quarterly downloads as suggested. Again, we do not currently record GitHub repository in the DOC Social Media Application Tracking System. Could we comply by creating an annual report for DOC and updating the Tracking System on an annual basis?