Re: Old directions in social media.

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 1/6/21 10:34 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On 1/6/21 1:18 PM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>
>> but I note that the 4 QUIC documents that are in IESG review all seem 
>> to be exceptionally polished and well written, and I understand that 
>> the QUIC WG has a strong Github based editing process
>
> I guess I'm wondering: what are the actual virtues of github (other 
> than that some people are already familiar with it) and is there a way 
> to build a tool that has those virtues without so much baggage, with a 
> lower barrier to entry, and which is more universally usable?
>
> One virtue appears to be encouraging WG participants to submit 
> concrete suggestions for changes in the same format as the document is 
> being maintained.
>
> Another virtue might be built-in support for issue tracking.
>
> But mostly, to me, github looks like a huge impediment.  And I use git 
> with program source code all the time.
>
>
I have no particular feeling about github one way or another, but 
diffing has always been a problem. Accountability is another problem, 
which is to say "how did this change slip in there?". Source control is 
at its heart about keeping track of who changed what and for what 
reason. For me, it would be really nice to know the progression of DKIM 
from rfc 4871 to STD 76, what changed, and who and why did they do it. 
Source control definitely gives you that, assuming they annotate the 
"why"'s in the checkin notes. That part of the process has tended to be 
pretty opaque in my experience.

Mike