Hacker News Reader

I think that the boxes on the "importance" scale are not very well named. I would personally use something like Critical, Important and Nice-to-have; or maybe a variation of the good old MoSCoW (Must, Should, Could; the "Won'ts" can be omitted for obvious reasons.

That being said, I can imagine each team having their own definition and levels of importance, with the names that are meaningful within their particular context.

It seems like this is a lot of the strategy behind pitching things as epics. If tweaks interact to produce considerable satisfaction / delight, then bundling them together keeps focus on what big thing happens when they're all completed..!

100% agree.

Another way to look at it:

if you deliver a couple of quick tweaks that the users want in the next week, that can buy you some time to do more behind the scenes refactoring/tech debt cleanup.