> I’m including the original brainstorm email for context/convenience at the bottom. 
> 
> > I know nothing about Jira and Fogbugz beyond the things I've seen on twitter where people complain about Jira.
> 
> Jira is heavily customizable. The catch is that it creates the paradox of choice problem both at a configuration level, and, if configured to do a lot of stuff, at the data entry and daily use level. 
> 
> For a developer, the configuration is fun. It can literally do anything. You can have different types of tasks. Bugs, New Features, Tasks, Enhancements, Stories, etc. And I believe you can even have the fields and workflow adapt depending on the type.
> 
> The video on the home page does a good job of giving an overview. It’s just really flexible.
> 
> The catch is that it looks great from a checklist standpoint, but the more custom configuration is created, the more confusing it can be for a non-developer. Say someone wants to report an issue. They can’t just file it. They have to decide if it’s a bug or a feature. Or should it be a story? Well, maybe this is just a task? The result is that people get confused, misfile things, or just feel like they must not belong there because they can’t understand it. Frequently, they’ll just email it to their favorite developer and let them handle it. And the result is that the work slips through the cracks. 
> 
> That’s where things start to fall apart, but that’s not something a developer will see or acknowledge because the problem is largely invisible. If issues simply aren’t being reported or team members aren’t using a tool, it’s harder to recognize that there even is a problem.
> 
> > Can you give me some concrete examples of things that exist at the more complex end of the spectrum and why a team might want them.
> 
> Customizable workflow, issue types, and things like custom fields. There are some plans to begin adding some of this to Sifter.
> 
> Customizable fields is a big one. People want to add a field for “Module” (where the bug was found) “User Agent” (for browser-related bugs) “Version Target”, “Due Date”. The problem is that as you add fields, the likelihood of a field being relevant to all types of issues goes down and you end up with a long form of fields that are only relevant a fraction of the time. For instance, people get tired of reporting User Agent when it’s only useful in 1 out of 10 bugs. That’s a lot of wasted effort. But as a developer, you want all of the info you can possibly get so you don’t have to go back and forth. For Microsoft, Adobe, etc, that makes sense. For the small team of 5 working on a Wordpress install for a marketing site and blog, that’s just not important enough to justify a dedicated field. 
> 
> Also the fields can be customized based on the type of issue. So a bug might need user agent info, but a question wouldn’t. Or a Story might have the whole “As a _____ I want to ______ so I can ______.” And then it might have some other fields, but it won’t need a user agent field. So in order to solve the problem of having too many irrelevant fields, they add the “Type” option to drive the fields that are available.
> 
> Now they simply have a new problem. With the “Type” field for classifying the issue, is it a “Bug” a “Front-end Bug” or an “Enhancement” or a “Story"? Client’s don’t really care. Not only do they not care, but they’re thinking “WTF is a Story?” (or whatever other random type there is) They just want something fixed/changed. Forcing people to classify something doesn’t contribute to solving the problem on a small team. And if your client submits something as a bug and you have to change it to an enhancement, it’s not only creating overhead, but it might piss the client off. So it’s generally best to have that conversation in the comments instead of what most developers would do which is reclassify it and move on without much of an explanation.
> 
> > Beyond that, I really like the point that different people on the same team will want different things out of a bug tracker (or whatever I'm working on a site right now with a new agency where that's true with something as simple as asset sharing). But anyway, is there a solution there? Or should I just frame that as one of those things that humans need to manage rather than chasing some ultimate tool? ie ultimately you'll never make everyone happy.
> 
> Much of this truly is a human problem rather than a software problem. People are generally much better at adapting than software, but as developers, we all want to believe that software should always bend to our whims. Since it’s usually more technology-focused people making the purchase decision, they rarely bother to evaluate the usability or participation implications of choosing a more complex tool.
> 
> For large teams, the complexity is generally worth it, but for a small team, they often adopt large bulky solutions that they used in the past without appreciating that at smaller sizes that process suffocates more than it enables.
> 
> For instance, with Sifter, there’s no classifying an issue type. When you’re working with maybe 100-200 issues per project, it doesn’t really matter if something is a bug, feature, or a task. It just needs to get done and shipped. So all that really matters is priority. But like with the lego analogy, developers feel better if they organize all the things. For instance, if we have a team of 5 people collaborating on a project, 1 back-end dev, 1 designer, 1 front-end dev, and a couple of non-technical business people, there’s really no need for heavy workflow. It’s more important that it’s lightweight and easy to use. It’s entirely possible for a small team like that that they might wast more time designing and deciding on workflow than actually getting things done.
> 
> For some more context, a lot of it is the ecosystem. Atlassian has a bunch of products, but at the end of the day, they’re really all just features of the “Atlassian Product”. Those features give you more power, but even their signup page is overwhelming with choices.
> http://cl.ly/dJTJ
> 
> Some people will see this and get excited at the options. Others will see it and get confused or overwhelmed at the decisions they need to make. That’s just kind of the nature of the beast.
> 
> On the flip side, many developers will look at something like Sifter or Trello and just feel like it’s the equivalent of using Duplos and it’s for amateurs. But their business and non-technical people love it because they get it.
> 
> I’m going to stop there. Hopefully that makes some sense of it. :)
> 
> - G
> 
> 
> > On Aug 2, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Garrett Dimon <garrett@nextupdate.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I just had another idea inspired by this. “Why it’s so difficult for your team to settle on a bug tracker?”
> > 
> > The premise is the Goldilocks story. This bug tracker is too simple. This bug tracker is too complicated. This bug tracker is just right.
> > 
> > Effectively, with bug and issue trackers, there’s a spectrum. On one end, you have todo lists/spreadsheets. Then you have things like GitHub Issues/Sifter/Trello somewhere in the middle, and then Jira/Fogbugz/etc. all of the way to the other end. 
> > 
> > Each of these tools makes tradeoffs. With Sifter, we keep it simple so small teams can actually have bug tracking because for them, they’d just as soon have no bug tracking as use Jira. It’s way too complicated for them.
> > 
> > Other teams doing really complex things find Sifter laughably simple. Their complexity needs justify the investment in training and excluding non-technical users.
> > 
> > This is all complicated by the fact that teams inevitably want ease-of-use and powerful customization, which, while not inherently exclusive of each other, are generally at odds with each other.
> > 
> > To make matters worse, on a larger team, some portion of the team values simplicity more while other parts of the team value advanced configuration and control. Neither group is wrong, but it is incredibly difficult to find a tool with the balance that’s right for a team.
> > 
> > I could probably expand on this more, but that should be enough to see if you think it’s a good topic or not.
>