[spec] Using a gitlab (Was: Regarding the proposal to remove status code 11

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 08:30:19PM -0700,
 Thomas Frohwein <tfrohwein@fastmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 79 lines which said:

> > Thirdly and lastly, about Gitlab. I strongly dislike the fact that
> > discussions which can have quite an impact on all Gemini users are
> > happening in Gitlab issues; to stay up-to-date on all these
> > requires regularly going through multiple webpages, and to comment
> > requires a Gitlab account! I think this is a mistake.
> 
> Agree, even with this one.

Group work is funny. When the discussion on the specification was on
the mailing list, everybody complained that it made a lot of messages,
that it was difficult to follow, to know for sure what was decided or
not, etc. (I did share some of these complaints but not all; many
problems were simply because some people do not use some features of
their email client, such as threading and full-text search.) Nobody
defended the mailing list and asked for the specification discussion
to remain there.

Now that we moved to another system, people (but may be not the same)
complain about the new system. My (long) experience with "groupware"
is that it is impossible to find a solution that will please
everyone. I just note that an issue tracking system is used by some
SDO (for instance the IETF) with success. (And, of course, it is used
by many programming teams.)

Regarding Gitlab, there is not yet (I regret it) a well-known and
widely used decentralized issue tracking system allowing not to have
an account of the central system. (There are many experiments, but
nothing solid yet.) So, it had to be a centralized system. We may
discuss about gitlab vs. gitea and about one given gitlab hoster
vs. another one but I regard this as details.

---

Previous in thread (2 of 39): 🗣️ Thomas Frohwein (tfrohwein (a) fastmail.com)

Next in thread (4 of 39): 🗣️ Luke Emmet (luke (a) marmaladefoo.com)

View entire thread.