Dave Crocker wrote:
> Mostly, we agree on these points. Handled properly, placing review items in an
> issues list can be helpful to all parties, as long as each issue is clearly
> stated and possible resolutions or constructive guidance are included.
>
> One caveat: Sometimes it is the aggregate review that is most significant and
> breaking it into constituent 'issues' loses the broader concerns.
>
I can't imagine dealing with something even vaguely contentious
without the issue tracker. However as I've seen it used, there's a fair
amount of power in being able to declare on a wg list that something
is an ISSUE that needs to be tracked. In particular, I've seen a lot of
cycles expended on 'issues' that clearly have little or no following. It
can be pretty time consuming and disruptive.
Maybe we need some better gating functions to the issue tracker, but
it would have to be careful to not squash comments/issues from left field
(ie, from cross-area, disinterested, etc) with some crushing new process.
Mike
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf