RE: Old directions in social media.

[Larry Masinter <LMM@xxxxxxx>]

I think it’s fine to have the “editing team” of a working group using GitHub (not just “Git” but the whole GitHub infrastructure).

However, GitHub “Discussions” are still in beta, and not as good as a mailing list with carefully chosen Subject lines.

Asking people with architectural questions to couch them in terms of rewriting the spec isn’t much better than
telling them to go fish. This is especially true of “groups” that hold no meetings (unless you want to suggest that

“meetings” – even teleconferencing -- are 1982 technology).

 

It may be a fine way for a group to develop a publicly available specification that group members
implement in an interoperable way, but why should the IETF have anything to do with it, if the
group process doesn’t admit the typical IETF cross-area industry-wide review by those who are
not so intimately familiar with the detailed vocabulary of the group’s specification to be in a position

to be able & willing to couch their questions in terms of a “Pull Request”?

 

--

https://LarryMasinter.net https://interlisp.org

 

From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Kyle Rose
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 9:08 AM
To: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Old directions in social media.

 

I do not understand why tools need to be limited by the least common denominator for the IETF as a whole, or limited to 1982 technology. Why is it such a burden to ask people to learn a new tool once every 3 decades or so? Clearly, git (along with related tooling, such as kramdown) is of great value to many because they've spread across the IETF at (for this group) an incredibly rapid pace.

 

IMO, a better response to the challenges posed by useful new tooling is to make it more accessible, not to prohibit it.

 

Kyle

 

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 11:43 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 1/4/21 12:40 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

 

I have seen groups trying to use git and I really wish they would stop. Using git to run a WG provides a small amount of tool support for issues tracking which is useful. But the tool is designed to do a very different job and has its own bizarre vocabulary. Telling people to enter comments as 'Pull Requests' causes most people's mental gears to grind. The result is WGs whose activities are unhappily split between a Web site and a mailing list with no cohesion between the two.

+1