On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:09 PM Kyle Rose <krose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Since the Open Meeting requires a Lisp Machine to run (!) I was not suggesting that we adopt that. What I said is that I am starting to build a tool for my own purposes, namely the ability to hold end-to-end encrypted collaborations in environments that require a higher level of security including classified and SCI environments. I am not aware of github being used for those purposes.
My problem with using git/github as a process driven collaboration tool is that github is designed to perform an entirely different task. So the effect is like someone telling you to use a screwdriver as a hammer and ignoring the complaints from people pointing out its a bad match. That doesn't mean it isn't the best tool available at the moment but it is not a good tool for that purpose because thats not what it is for.
