I've changed the To: to point to the ietf-and-github@ mailing list for this discussion, and moved the ietf@ list to a BCC: header for this message. I think it's more appropriate for talking about this specific issue...
-Benson
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IETF’s primary collaborative tool is email. Right now it’s very easy to find the email archive for any WG, and to come up to speed on the WG discussion. This would be much more difficult if WGs used github or other third party tools for discussions that might otherwise have used the WG’s email list. Any public discussions regarding WG business should remain on the current email lists unless and until they are formally replaced or augmented so that people still only have to go to one place to stay current with WG discussions. I don’t mind an eventual replacement of email lists for WG business, as long as the change is formal, supported, and consistent across all WGs.And stay off of my lawn!Curmudgeonly yours,AndyOn Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Bob,
All the way down...
On 1/28/16 6:02 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Eliot,
>
>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 4:55 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Jari,
>>
>> I have no conceptual problem with github being used for draft
>> development or being integrated in our tools process for state changes,
>> or archiving of discussions, but I would maintain strong objections to
>> any approach that would lead to bifurcation of discussion on a topic.
>> That is- the technology and our relationships with those providing the
>> service should be conducive to a single integrated conversation on a topic.
> To say this another way, using github (or other collaboration tools) is great for authors or a design team to work together to develop an Internet draft. I do this myself. I think the dividing line is that drafts should continue to be submitted via the datatracker as they are now and working groups be using the datatracker to do their work. I would be very concerned if working groups started to do their work outside of the datatracker.
>
Yes, and. Discussion of technical issues should remain normatively
within a single platform. If we want that to be github, okay. But today
it's email. Doing both would at first glance sound like reaching out to
people who prefer different modes of communications, but at the end of
the day proves quite difficult for those who are actually trying to keep
track of multiple threads in a conversation. Also, any platform should
be able to support our processes, particular those that help us address
abuse.
Eliot