> Using the same toolchain, per se, doesn't seem like a rationale
Reducing a barrier to contribute is worthwhile. Just as some are advocating being able to submit a draft in any format they have on-hand.
> 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.
No. Participating in a high-volume list with no practical ability to filter things out to just the one section of a draft, for example.
> What about e.g. the archives for the discussions, for future reference?
Is github.com expected to take on that role?
It is possible. Martin's tools already archive all issues and discussions, and the IETF is already making copies of those repositories mentioned in the datatracker.
> 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.
In my experience, very few things are win-win.
It would be nice if all potential IETF participants were born in the same era and used to the same tools, I suppose. But it would also be very boring.
