4 ms·

> Having bucketed priorities (highest/high/medium/low/lowest) is a big failure of Jira / ticketing systems though. They should be a unique set of priorities, wi

> Having bucketed priorities (highest/high/medium/low/lowest) is a big failure of Jira / ticketing systems though. They should be a unique set of priorities, with only one single ticket occupying #1 priority, another slightly less one in slot #2 etc. Jira supports both. The thing you're describing is called Rank and is used on every board and backlog. Our team uses Rank almost exclusively. The bigger thing to understand here is that different people use different "labeling systems". If you ignore software dev and think about note taking, there are a bunch of different systems. Some work better for one group of people, others work better for another group. I think Jira has had a lot of success because it doesn't force people into one system. The downside is that people often configure it to use 3 different systems at the same time and they vary team to team and this causes a lot of strife and confusion.

fredfjohnsen 6y ago
This is the most logical, sensible comment in the thread. Jira is the most flexible system for workflow management in existence. The fact that it is extensible is "a feature, not a bug." I don't see really see anyone stating obvious truths about bad developers & software engineers (as shocking as it may be to read on HN that there are, in fact, objectively bad developers & software engineers with high-paying jobs at companies whose names you know.) - they are more interested in making a new thing instead of fixing a broken thing they released - they often can't remember how they built the last new thing - that's because they aren't interested in building & documenting a fully working thing with test code from the start - they aren't interested in data structures or architecture built to be easily maintained or in making scale part of their designs - they despise being told to fix bugs because it is much easier to write code than it is to read it I believe some organizations implement Jira thinking it is going to solve their cultural problems. This is magical thinking. I am so tired of hearing about how terrible Jira is from developers. It's usually the case that where Jira isn't working it has to do with the way it's configured (e.g., giving too many people access to set priority, setting too many priorities, setting too many components, using components in illogical ways, no one actively managing & grooming queues...) To implement Jira successfully probably requires more work & effort to get it right than to not use it at all. The point of it is not to eliminate the work of issue tracking. It is to organize the workflow management of moving incredibly complex information from one person to the next. It's pretty great at this if you know how to use it.
- Almad 6y ago
  I completely agree and I hope I explicitly mentioned it in the article: it's not Jira, it's about how people/organizations often think about the problem.

fredfjohnsen 6y ago

This is the most logical, sensible comment in the thread. Jira is the most flexible system for workflow management in existence. The fact that it is extensible is "a feature, not a bug." I don't see really see anyone stating obvious truths about bad developers & software engineers (as shocking as it may be to read on HN that there are, in fact, objectively bad developers & software engineers with high-paying jobs at companies whose names you know.) - they are more interested in making a new thing instead of fixing a broken thing they released - they often can't remember how they built the last new thing - that's because they aren't interested in building & documenting a fully working thing with test code from the start - they aren't interested in data structures or architecture built to be easily maintained or in making scale part of their designs - they despise being told to fix bugs because it is much easier to write code than it is to read it I believe some organizations implement Jira thinking it is going to solve their cultural problems. This is magical thinking. I am so tired of hearing about how terrible Jira is from developers. It's usually the case that where Jira isn't working it has to do with the way it's configured (e.g., giving too many people access to set priority, setting too many priorities, setting too many components, using components in illogical ways, no one actively managing & grooming queues...) To implement Jira successfully probably requires more work & effort to get it right than to not use it at all. The point of it is not to eliminate the work of issue tracking. It is to organize the workflow management of moving incredibly complex information from one person to the next. It's pretty great at this if you know how to use it.

Almad 6y ago
I completely agree and I hope I explicitly mentioned it in the article: it's not Jira, it's about how people/organizations often think about the problem.