My strong default preference at this point is for git. It
works well, supports all the necessary features plus some
extras, and is IMHO poised to be the default SCMS of choice
for a number of open source projects (besides
kernel.org and
x.org). The cogito interface, which is rapidly improving,
makes it usable by mere mortals. We've moved a lot of my
projects to git, and have had lots of good experiences and
no catastrophes.
I use git everyday and I work with some pretty clued up people, who are certainly not adverse to trying new things and different version control systems.
However, while git works really well for our particular development model, there's a LOT of noise about having to use a vcs that's not mature enough. Sure, we're all hackers cabable of finding and fixing bugs or (more likely for git) writing wrappers, but there's a point where you want to be using a tool that works, not help write one.
I seem to remember a discussion a while ago about arch/baz having too high a barrier of entry for the d-w website (I could have invented this). If that's the case, git would certainly be too high.
I haven't done anything to help with the d-w website, but I would think git would be overkill to start off with, and not mature enough at any rate.
Penny