nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Atlassian backlog management

Radek Antoniuk

I'm quite sure you've all seen this.

I'm working with Atlassian tools for more than 10 years and while I'm a big fan of the tools, I myself am often quite frustrated when I try do achieve some basic stuff, I can't, google it and it turns out there is a 10 years old feature request that is still being commented.

Let's look at an example:
https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/CONFSERVER-34510

The summary is that the issue was created in 2014, it was somehow reviewed, decided not to be implemented, but people still poke it with "+1" and demanding this basic functionality to be implemented.

Now, while the process (workflow) itself is quite okayish - I won't go into business decision why Atlassian is deciding left or right to implement stuff, in this case I'm betting on the fact that there is a plugin available and Atlassian is promoting the plugin approach to have also good relationship with 3rd party plugin vendors - that is fine.

BUT, I miss here transparency a lot. The issue is marked with "NOT BEING CONSIDERED" status, that's clear, but then I think it should be moved to "CLOSED" status, with appropriate comment saying this is achievable via a plugin, and most importantly, commenting and voting shall be blocked to prevent observers from the past being spammed and irritated (again) that it's not going to be implemented - this is just how human brain works.

I could show tons of examples like this issue, but I think the point is quite visible and I'm curious on your thoughts!

Comments

Ramanathan Yegyanarayanan

If its achievable by a vendor plugin then it can be marked as closed stating that as a reason rather than marked as not being considered.

Manuel Bähnisch

Hi Radek,

also I believe people still vote for these kind of issues in the hope that Atlassian will change its mind and implement the feature if just enough people vote so the apps-stack doesn't grow by yet another that needs to be paid for on a yearly basis.

At least I think there should be more communication regarding the decision making. A "We won't implement renaming groups - use Atlassian crowd" or the like would give a hint on what could be a solution. Instead requests are just "not considered" or "gathering interest". I find it hard to understand the "Don't bull**** the customer" rule in these cases.

Same applies to the Datacenter vs. Server strategy that Atlassian has. One can tell from the features being made available in data center only that they're trying to get rid of Server. But then at least make it clear.

Just my two cents.

According to their Implementation of New Features Policy, this is what each of the statuses means.

Not Being Considered (NBC)

We appreciate the merit of this issue, but don't intend to work it in the foreseeable future. We'll review it again within a year to see if our decision has changed.

Closed

Work on this issue is complete. If the change has been implemented, the resolution will be 'Fixed' and the Fix Version field will indicate the product version that contains the change.
If we don't intend to implement this change, the resolution will be 'Won't fix', ‘Duplicate', 'Timed out', or similar.

So NBC is not the end of the road, it's just gone to the bottom of the backlog to be reviewed in a year.

I've seen them go from In Progress to NBC, so the rhyme and reason are not terribly transparent.

Radek Antoniuk

I'm simply pointing out the user frustration in such comments:
https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRACLOUD-17783?focusedCommentId=2392576

And this is CLOUD... so, definitely would be good for the Product Managers to step up and explain the company policy and behaviour more often in the Public Feature Request space that they provided themselves.

I just hope that some Atlassian Team members will see this and push the message through in the office.

__ Jimi Wikman

Still can be closed with the NBC resolution in my opinion.

Then let it be trransitioned into a yearly review status during the review period, or simply leave it as closed if it does not warrant it to be re-opened again.

Why confuse people with these things I never understand.

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Quick Links

Find more posts tagged with

featured-groups