I can't speak for Atlassian dogfooding, but I don't find this to be a very true statement: > While Atlassian has great confidence for how you should run your p

I can't speak for Atlassian dogfooding, but I don't find this to be a very true statement: > While Atlassian has great confidence for how you should run your projects JIRA really doesn't. It's extremely flexible, which I think is where it earns a lot of it's bad rep. You can really map your entire mental model to it's statuses and workflows if you want to (but you shouldn't). The teams that I've been on that have had success with JIRA are ones where JIRA only encompasses the minimal amount of process as possible to represent the status of an story/bug/initiative with as little extra added as possible. The other key thing I've noticed is using it as consistently as possible so it can actually become the central repository (found a bug? make a bug ticket. have an idea thats starting to take shape? make a story ticket. fix a bug? put the ticket number in the commit). Seems like common sense, but usually needs to be strictly enforced, especially with individuals that are on the fringes of the development process (such as subject matter experts).