Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: Ietf-and-github -- Discussion of using GitH

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(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 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,
> Andy
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> 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(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> 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