Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar tools

Nick Hilliard <> Wed, 21 April 2021 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED1E3A29F2 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z9rJ43E0bfL6 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84A9F3A29F3 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crumpet.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 13LETajK084599 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:29:36 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: adapting IETF in light of github and similar tools
To: "=?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J._D=c3=bcrst?=" <>
References: <001001d7360b$2384e0d0$6a8ea270$> <> <>
From: Nick Hilliard <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:29:34 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.47
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:30:01 -0000

Martin J. Dürst wrote on 21/04/2021 07:32:
> On 2021-04-21 02:49, Fred Baker wrote:
>>> On Apr 20, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Larry Masinter <> wrote:
>>> Does anyone think GitHub is perfect for IETF use already?
>> I do not. I’m not sure that a process or tool exists that can be 
>> described in those terms, including our present processes and tools.
> I know some very productive open source contributors who do not think 
> GitHub is perfect for source code development.
> I wouldn't expect GitHub to be perfect for IETF use, which has usage 
> patterns quite a bit different from source code development.

tools don't need to be perfect to be usable, and the IETF has always 
encoded the principle that insisting on perfection is an obstacle to 

The discussion on tools needs to centre not on whether GH or any other 
tool is perfect, but whether they suit a reasonable number of people for 
a reasonable number of things.  So long as people aren't forced down any 
particular alley - and in the case of GH, they are clearly not - then 
there isn't a particular problem with opening up access to a specific 
tool or other.  There is nothing which suits everyone.