> To me it seems that the coordination of two source control tools seems to be a lot of work.
We already have multiple copies of the repo. Every clone is a copy of the repo. GitHub will just be another copy. Furthermore there is little difference between changes on a branch on a remote or changes on a branch of your local box. The workflow is nearly identical. You could take the stance that branches are evil and that there should only be a single holy master branch, though then you are doing the git thing wrong.
I'm confident enough about this to take ALL of this work on me personally, so its a non issue.
> Niklas worried about the delay this could introduce
If we sync once a week (and we can easily do more), then this will not be much different then the delay of translations for a branch that exists for more then a week. And the syncing problem is very theoretical at this point. We should pay attention to this if a lot of development happens via the GitHub repo. If we simply accept patches to be submitted there, the number of merges ought to be rather low, and we can easily push to the WMF repo after every merge. So NO delay.
> and Nischay worried (like others at SMWCon) about the confusion of having some extensions here and others [there].
Confusion from which perspective? The developer contributing to the code, or the user using it? In either case, I again do not see any real issues if we handle this sanely. The existing support stays as it is for both groups, so no one is forced to change anything. We just add an additional capability. One which can be used by those who ARE (currently, very much non-theoretical) confused by Gerrit and the WMF workflow.
> If we had an automated synchronisation of GitHub and Gerrit, then the
advantages would combine and the disadvantages would vanish, right?
The automated synchronization could save some work at some point. However as I already indicated, I'm quite happy to be this automation for now. I don't think it makes sense to invest a lot of time into additional infrastructure while no clear need for it has been demonstrated. So yes, to some extend this will leave us with the best of both worlds. It's not completely the case we get rid of all disadvantages in the current setup if we use both systems, though those are significantly less important then supporting contributions via GitHub.