Props guys, I think you do an incredible job. GitLab is in fact a reasonable alternative, I should have mentioned it in my post.
The reason we went to Github rather than Sourceforge is because of the community. Nethertheless, I think it's fairly foolish to focus on the platform (in the case here of archiving) - it's just a host. Stuff goes on domain 1 instead of domain 2. In either case it's still open source, the archives are all there, git is decentralized and perfect for the job.
Contradictory signals in your rationale here. It comes off as if you're filling in a post-hoc justification.
Is it just an archive or isn't it? If it is, what's so important about the community, then?
It's fine that you chose what you did, of course. It's just that that in your defending it, you can't seem to decide whether you want to have your cake or eat it.
If you wanted, this would have been a perfectly fine reason to give: "We went with GitHub because it's just what we use mostly, and other stuff not so much."
You're very confused. I don't work with the Archive Team, I was offering my experience regarding our project's move move from Sourceforge to Github and why GGGGGGGGP's (or something...) comment was way off base.
I originally wrote my comment[1] allowing for the idea that you were an uninvolved bystander, until a reread of your comment strongly suggested that you were part of the project being discussed. I suppose I got confused when you began talking about "we" and "our project".
1. The meat of which remains: if it's just an archive and the host is only being used as dumb storage, how is the "community" aspect of it a plus?
