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(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com> 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.