RE: Old directions in social media.

["Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I’m not really wanting to get dragged into this debate … but I think that it might be interesting to try and objectively compare the quality of the documents produced by WGs making use of github vs those just using email.

 

One swallow does not a summer make, but I note that the 4 QUIC documents that are in IESG review all seem to be exceptionally polished and well written, and I understand that the QUIC WG has a strong Github based editing process.  Of course, there could be many factors as to why this is (e.g., maybe the editors are native English speakers, these documents probably have had more review and discussion) but it also seems plausible that easier collaborative editing/updates might be a factor in the high quality output from the WG.

 

And obviously, this doesn’t mean that other WGs don’t also produce high quality output …

 

Rob

 

 

From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: 05 January 2021 16:43
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Old directions in social media.

 

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