On 1/6/21 1:18 PM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
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
I guess I'm wondering: what are the actual virtues of github (other than that some people are already familiar with it) and is there a way to build a tool that has those virtues without so much baggage, with a lower barrier to entry, and which is more universally usable?
One virtue appears to be encouraging WG participants to submit concrete suggestions for changes in the same format as the document is being maintained.
Another virtue might be built-in support for issue tracking.
But mostly, to me, github looks like a huge impediment. And I
use git with program source code all the time.
Keith
