In my defense, I started working at Google after we started BUG. As well, I could have sworn that when I looked at it there was some reason we weren't allowed to use it, like there was a requirement (e.g. open source) that we didn't follow (though we are open source, so it was something else). I can't find any reason now, so we could switch.
On the flip side, the permissions are less robust than at SF.net. There are only two permissions: owner or member for the whole project. SF has three permission levels (admin, tech, member) for each section. This may not matter for our needs, though. I'll have to play around with it some more to see.
On the down side, if we want to be able to start tagging releases (I'd like to), we will not be able to transfer our code history. This isn't really a big deal, but it would be nice to have. Of course, we can leave SF.net's project there for posterity.
And then there's the compromise: use GC for tracking and SF for code. And of course, if we set up SF's tracker, it might suit our needs anyway.
@OneBinary - have you checked out SF's tracker? How does it compare to GC? I've just added you as a tech to it so you should be able to see how to customize it.
End-run. I'm looking at SF's tracker now, and it is quite good. We just need to sit down and create all the categories and components. I did that for GC (it was just a text block -- yay for free-text config), so this shouldn't be too hard.
It's . . . it's . . . it's Google!
Google Civ would so own! 
) should add to that traker the things in my list... it covers all the previous features requested / bugs discovered, so I think that we must not leave them out 
