Hi Keith, On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 07:37:08PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > On 8/2/19 7:31 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > On Aug 3, 2019, at 01:13, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> (and I realize you were trying to employ reductio ad absurdum but the analogy simply does not hold.) > > Right. A better analogy would be eating only animals you have slaughtered yourself. > > > > Grüße, Carsten > > > > (And the answer to the question in the subject line can be reduced to “No. But use it with care.” For which we have a whole WG. Why are we discussing this here?) > > Strongly disagree. I think the answer is "yes, as soon as > practicable". And I'd argue that that WG should not exist with its > current charter - there should be no presumption that GitHub is > appropriate for IETF or that it should be favored in any way. The very I'm a bit puzzled by this. Are you arguing that all the WGs that organically started using github before we had a GIT WG were/are behaving inappropriately? As for "favored in any way", my understanding is that the GIT WG talks about github because there were lots of people that wanted to talk about how to use github most effectively, not because anyone decided on behalf of the IETF that github is the best thing ever. Does that kind of "voting with their feet" count as favoritism to you? > fact that IETF is favoring a commercial provider of any service seems > both dangerous to IETF and completely inappropriate. I recall the BoF that led to the GIT WG presenting its desired output as "here are a set of pre-baked procedures that your WG can choose to use, if your WG decides to use github". Is that favoring github, or just reduction of duplicated effort? > (though I suppose the right thing to do procedurally is file an appeal, > it seems to make more sense to discuss it here first in case my concerns > can be addressed.) Fair enough. -Ben
