Strongly agree with Joel. If this is something individual
document authors and editors people want to use, great. OTOH,
were it to evolve into a requirement, doing so would reduce the
range of people who could reasonably volunteer to act as
document authors and that would be a step in the wrong direction.
FWIW, I'm actually concerned about the trends toward making
xml2rfc a requirement rather a useful optional tool. Again,
individual ways of working differ and, at least for I-Ds, I'd
prefer to maximize author efficiency rather than trying to force
everyone into the same mold.
best,
john
--On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 18:56 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern"
<jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have no objection to people using github for internet draft
> preparation.
> I have some concerns with working groups requiring it, in part
> because I like our tradition of allowing folks to use whatever
> tooling they are comfortable with. This is counter-balanced
> to some degree by the importance of making it easy for the
> working group to have control over the draft content.
>
> I ntoe tht the rtgwg includes in its recommendations that
> authors may, but are not require to, use github. That makes
> good sense to me.
>
> And if we are going to allow it, and encourage where suitable
> use for improved collaboration, having good ways to explain
> how to use github and how to use it working with the IETF
> processes makes good sense.