Comment by mooreds | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mooreds | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

We have a lot of issues (nearing 1000) in a public repo[0] that anyone can view and vote on.

This gives us a natural filtering mechanism for community input. We regularly sort this by number of upvotes. It also lets our users submit some off the wall ideas, and gives a way for low friction community feedback to be captured. Finally, it lets community members easily be notified when a feature is delivered by subscribing to the issue.

We also have a separate, private list of commits to customers. (The commit is public and is added to a milestone, but the customer is private.)

We also group issues by theme[1]. It's not perfect but it's an attempt to make sure we don't run into the duplicates issue you mention. It allows the eng team to address multiple issues in the same area of the code at once.

I understand what you are saying about clutter, but the low cost public feedback and tight loop between issue and code is worth some issue creep, IMO.

0: https://github.com/FusionAuth/fusionauth-issues/issues

1: https://github.com/FusionAuth/fusionauth-issues/issues?q=is%...

I see your product is for devs, so totally get this. I work in enterprise software and can't imagine this would work well.

That makes sense. I think you should tune your product management strategy for your audience.

Still think there's value in having an open roadmap and feature list that customers and users can submit too, regardless of industry. I wouldn't recommend you use GitHub, though :).

Vote = vote * employee.grade

(/S this isnt actually a good idea but may be practical depending on the org)

The best metric would likely be one that reflects closely the actual power distribution at a company. That makes the answer difficult, but it also makes me more interested in the idea of what would be a best fit.

As for my first attempt to guess the power structure: vote = 1 + sum(direct_reports.vote)

It really depends on what your priorities are, its a key driver in defining the culture.. who do you listen to when considereing tranformation / change?

You could have a suite i guess.. maybe look for overlap?

Satisfaction? Vote = vote * staff turnover for voters role.

Greed? Vote = vote * voters team profit

Top down control? Vote = vote * voters grade

Reverse disfunction? Vote = vote * number of complaints raised by voter

Cross functional impact: vote = vote * num departments voting for this

My question marks reflect i have no idea what the real optimisation is when you select a defined metric / score.

In reality (as someone who wants to make things hollisticially better in a sustainable way) i look for the overlap of several things:

Who do people have on speed dial to fix issues? Will this reduce how many calls they get? Ignoring what official processes say.

Will this impact the bottom line?

Will it increase customer satisfaction?

What will be the impact on staff turnover? I prefer to reduce this but at least there needs to be a mitigation if its negative. Key questions are: will people better understand personal their impact on Cost and quality? Will this make success and failure clearer outcomes for the individual?

Then finally will this be a step towards or away from governance principals of org? E.g. does this cause party A to have needless influence or judgement over party B (at all levels).. basically will this enable individual agency at all levels.

I always justify it on paper in terms of governace efficiency/efficacy, profit and quality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com