The article (including the attached presentation) seems to be the timely start of a marketing campaign for some GitHub replacement, a "Git-killer" only in the sense that a proprietary complicated walled garden would be preferred over an open DVCS like Git.
All "desired features" are unacceptably vague and either arbitrary or anchored to very specific, and not necessarily good enough to support, project types, organizations and usage patterns. For example, expecting a DVCS to evaluate what users are good enough to merge code is aberrant.
The article (including the attached presentation) seems to be the timely start of a marketing campaign for some GitHub replacement, a "Git-killer" only in the sense that a proprietary complicated walled garden would be preferred over an open DVCS like Git.
All "desired features" are unacceptably vague and either arbitrary or anchored to very specific, and not necessarily good enough to support, project types, organizations and usage patterns. For example, expecting a DVCS to evaluate what users are good enough to merge code is aberrant.