On 8/2/19 8:05 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
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?
I'm not going to fault groups that organically started using github.
(Though I hope they got AD approval before doing so.) Broadly speaking
I'm supportive of groups looking for better tools and better ways to
conduct discussions, though it's imperative that they follow process
(e.g. decisions are made on the mailing list) and that they maintain
openness and neutrality (e.g. github users should not be favored.)
I'm also saying that the risks of using github may now be more obvious,
than they were before several WGs started using it.
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?
What bothers me is not that there's a group discussing use of version
control software by IETF WGs. What bothers me is that there's a
presumption in the WG's charter that github is appropriate to use, and
that it's favored in the charter simply by singling it out. The
wording of the charter also means that it's problematic to go to that WG
and argue why using github is a bad idea. The chairs could quite
legitimately rule that argument out-of-scope. And anyway, the deck is
already stacked. The way the charter was written it is much more
likely to attract github proponents than people who prefer other systems
or services.
Keith
