Re: Pre-BoF documents and mailing lists

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 6, 2019, at 11:20 AM, Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>   I would agree. I'll also note, though, that people seem to be using GitHub as a means of discussing documents, and that without the use of the list.
> 
> I don't want the thread to migrate, but I will point out that GitHub doesn't make commentary "vanish" when something is resolved, and that discussion of that topic is happening over on the IETF list.

True, but (and respecting your desire for the topic to not wander - I actually think it's the same topic or at least related) if I'm following the IETF list, I have no clue that there might be a related topic somewhere in GitHub (where in GitHub, specifically? Is that one place?), or in some random Google Doc, or that there was one in the past that I should read through.

There are at least two conversations, which might have disjoint sets of participants, unaware of each other, looking at the same or different data, and arriving at potentially diametrically opposed viewpoints, each of which is held in consensus among some set of people.

What I think I would want is one set of threads that is "master", and to which other threads are mirrored if necessary. I want to be able to follow or investigate a topic without having to become a forensic pathologist or archeologist.

I'm also related to RSSAC. We use Google Docs extensively in RSSAC. The difference is that our different conversational threads are explicitly different - the conversation about a given document *all* happens in that document, and if there is a related email exchange, it refers to the document.