IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Old directions in social media.

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 07 January 2021 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96173A0BDB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 14:53:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XknILsd6J8ib for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 14:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8EE03A0BDA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 14:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8240389B6; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:54:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id EJA6BoaCFlUB; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:54:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B020A389B2; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:54:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F4C4BE; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:53:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Old directions in social media.
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwgvats19N7P1um437_LXjNG2gLK9OZCQdWmWBD52Gbuwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+Lwg1-pxKU8vMinFDUbVca52VgFzTOOSJMnJjaUJvF6PLew@mail.gmail.com> <519a0e4d-7102-fac8-1517-04c590a80080@network-heretics.com> <MN2PR11MB43668BD4EE84EDCCA9C8062AB5D00@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <8d37d121-3f47-43b4-93ae-036068121b08@network-heretics.com> <91FCD1A5-050D-476D-8EEA-38CB43DE20F1@akamai.com> <CAMm+Lwgvats19N7P1um437_LXjNG2gLK9OZCQdWmWBD52Gbuwg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 17:53:22 -0500
Message-ID: <24914.1610060002@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0HS91mzSN22QawqSh6ixKSa5zAI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 22:53:27 -0000

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
    PHB> My experience of the OpenPGP BIS WG was that the attempt to use github were
    PHB> one of the things that led to its failure.

Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    RS> That WG used GitLab, not GitHub.

PHB,
I don't know what happened, or whether it was GitLab or GitHub.
I do know that it was at least five years ago, right?
I would appreciate some summary of what went wrong?
Was it really the tool?  Was it people using the tool wrong?
Were they fighting the tool?
Were they disagreeing (maybe even implicitely) on how to use the tool?

I'm asking this to understand what a better tool would actually do.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email