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.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/26/16 6:42 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>> wrote:
I am not a fan of making IETF processes dependent on
technologies that don't "belong" to the IETF and I don't
think it's a trivial concern, but if the IETF tools
aren't working for us it makes sense to look outside for
tools that do.
I don't disagree. But I have a slightly different perspective, and I'd
value feedback from the community.
It seems to me that it would be inefficient for the IETF to do
everything ourselves.
For instance we may choose to use applications that have their own APIs,
protocols, etc without requiring the IETF to standardize the whole
stack. (To illustrate my point: consider non-IETF standards from IEEE,
W3C, etc and/or tools like WebEx, YouTube, etc.) I don't think we should
limit ourselves to only using things that "belong" to the IETF if that
means limiting our productivity without good reason.
More to the point, it seems reasonable to outsource tools when doing so
is the best choice. Just because we /can/ run our own instance of some
service doesn't mean that we /should/. I'm especially cognizant of the
economics of these choices, given that the IETF budget is limited. There
may be cases where we need more control, exposure to the technology,
etc, and thus sometimes the "best choice" is not primarily driven by
financial considerations. But it's not rational to be steered by a bias
for doing things ourselves at the expense of other opportunities,
productivity, etc.
My straw-man conclusion, for your consideration and criticism, is that
we should routinely consider "cloud based" tools as a first-class option.
For what it's worth, in my role on the IAOC I observe that we do
consider all of our options today. But I may also observe a bias in the
community that I'd like to understand better.
Thanks,
-Benson