> On 2 Aug 2019, at 10:17 am, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 8/2/19 1:14 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Keeping track of "issues" can be appropriate when a document is in a fairly mature state. Before that point, however, if discussion must be couched in terms of "issues", whoever gets to define the "issues" wins the battles.
In the WGs I'm involved in, anyone can define an issue (at least for the first part of the work). It causes a certain amount of noise, but it's worth it.
> It's a bit like working group scope - if the scope is defined poorly the whole output of the WG is likely to be useless or worse.
That never happens around here, surely?
--
Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
