Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It wasn't the tool, and it wasn't GitLab's tooling around git.
> There wasn't enough interest from the WG, the doc editor didn't get
> involved much, and the WG chairs were new.
> I was a WG member from the beginning and attended all F2F meeting.
I see, thank you.
If you haven't read http://xprogramming.com/articles/jatbaseball/
We Tried Baseball and It Didn't Work
then please do, as it sure sounds like this happened, and that the criticism
of github/gitlab parallels this.
---
On a number of bigger open source projects that I am involved in, I find github
excessively noisy and 80% of tickets just gum up the machine. Integration
with a stackexchange-like thing would be nice to have. (That would be
inappropriate for IETF work)
In some other projects, issues are opened and then closed faster than anyone can
actually keep up.
But, in many of the IETF *DESIGN TEAM* efforts, where the design team has regular
meetings, I find github rather effective. Certainly far more useful than we
we tried to use trac. (And, back in 2007, I was a major fan of trac)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
