I don't object to having some kind of non-GitHub process, but operationally what the community is using is mostly GitHub and having this process on something else would be far less useful.
-Ekr On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 11:10 AM Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jean Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > ### GitHub Roadmap (Reflecting Changing Author Processes AP-2, AP-3) > > > The RPC is offering an optional AUTH48 process whereby the RPC shares > > its proposed edits with authors using a pull request made against the > > approved source file in an RPC-created GitHub repo. This > GitHub-based > > process is currently being offered on limited basis, and the RPC is > > accepting 5 documents per month. For details, see the RPC GitHub > > roadmap at > > I want to continue to suggest that this be a *GIT* process, not a * > github.com* one. > While there was a small (but vocal) minority of people who have never > wanted > to participate on github, with the continuing lack of v6 and then more > recent > shenaghans there, that concern grows. > > I continue to suggest that the IETF/LLC/RPC should own/pay for our own > system. > Either self-hosted codeberg, gitlab, ... or hiring a hosted system from > someone. > > I have not had the privilege of doing the git(hub) AUTH48 process yet. > I look forward to it. I suspect that due to the decentralized nature of > *git*, that authors that do not want to interact with this bigtech entity > probably can just do appropriate git-clones, but I haven't seen the emails > yet. > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
