On 25/2/21 17:49, Eric Rescorla wrote:
[...]
The rationale is that there are millions of people using GitHub, and
if do documents with their toolchain, we will get more feedback from
developers than if we tried to draw them into our toolchain. I
didn't realize that was what you were asking me. This rationale was
stated multiple times in the GIT WG.
FWIW, my impression of the situation is the same as Rich's.
Using the same toolchain, per se, doesn't seem like a rationale (note,
I'm *not* challenging whether it was effective in your experience, but
why rather why it was expected ot make a difference).
I can say
with confidence that when TLS decided to adopt Github it was because we
had seen that it worked well in H2. With that said, I do think it made
it easier for people to get involved, in part because it was easy to
offer small changes without subscribing to a list, etc.
Ok, so this seems to imply that part of the thing is that subcribing to
the mailing-lists is seen as part of the problem.
What about e.g. the archives for the discussions, for future reference?
Is github.com expected to take on that role?
It certainly made it easier to accept such contributions.
Certainly this kind of think may make the life of some easier, and the
life of others more painful. But there *is* an implied tradeoff here.
It's not a win-win thing.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
