My experience is very much the opposite. It's easy to lose a bit of feedback in a tumult of e-mail; threads don't have any formal closure unless you impose an unrealistic amount of structure onto mailing list discussions.
In contrast, using an issues list forces you to make a deliberate decision about the fate of a particular bit of feedback; if the person raising it disagrees with the disposition of the issue, they can complain there, to the mailing list, or to the chairs directly.
In other words - issues have explicit states ("open", "closed"), owners, and tags ("editorial", "design"). In practice that I've seen, this means that issues get more scrutiny, and there is more accountability -- not less.
Cheers,
> On 2 Aug 2019, at 4:35 am, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 08:43:42AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>> IMO it is dangerous for IETF to be dependent on an externally-run platform
>> that is subject to change at a whim.
>
> I strongly concur with this. The IETF should run its own repository,
> subject to its own policies/procedures/etc. Yes, that's more work,
> but it assures autonomy and it's much less work than frantically
> trying to adapt to a sudden change imposed by an external platform --
> whose agenda is not the IETF's agenda.
>
> ---rsk
>
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
