The world moving to Git and GitHub
Why every time I see discussion about why Git is bad I see these two together? Each of them is very different beast, not mentioning that GitHub can be easily replaced for Bitbucket, Gitlab or other in-house solutions and universal-ish trackers (e.g. Redmine).
 
Early decisions are the most costly ones, so if we can choose any DVCS to work with, would be nice to consider extra options besides git.
Certainly locking ourselves out of options would be bad idea, but I don't think that is happening. Git gets the most manpower, because most people know it.
 
(for example our bosses in the work environments choosing git because... well... everybody else is doing it).
I am curious… if you already use alternative language like Smalltalk, does boss really have a say in choosing VCS?
 
If that's the direction the project will take, please make Git as invisible as possible, I wouldn't like to start to think in pulls, pushes, blames, fetchs, patchs, stashs, bisects and all that stuff.
Speaking of blames, does current Monticello / STHub even support such thing? I've struggled it many times when I was trying to figure out when and why certain line appeared in code. I can do that with git trivially.
 
Something like choose the repository. Sync local with remote, like in Monticello/Fossil will be ideal, not because is what we have now, but because is something with the same smoothness while can open the door to some advantages of DVCS without the extra complexity of Git.
From what I understood about Fossil syncing, such behavior can be achieved with git hooks, arguably hooks are cheating and messy.

There is also an effort to produce application catalog. Would it be not easier to do this catalog if we were all using github?
I don't think this would be a good move to rely solely on github. I like that we already have ConfigurationOf/BaselineOf; for projects and I would much rather see more versatile solution - SmalltalkHub, GitHub, Bitbucket, .zip, what have you.

Peter