If you're seeing a massive amount of problems in your organization AND you have what appears to be a badly broken prioritization/triage/issue tracking process, you need to fix your triage process before you'll be able to solve the real underlying problems.
There's no situation in which opening 500 issues in four months and only closing a tiny fraction of that amount is healthy, regardless of severity or whether they're feature requests or bug reports, or whatever.
The graph makes that point, and I'll hold the fact that this is on the front page of HN, /r/programming, and lobste.rs as evidence of that point being sufficiently informative and well understood by the vast majority of readers.
I would have updated the image on the first report of the issue if I was able to edit the post, but this is an archive from an email newsletter entry. It is worth fixing, and I will fix it in time for the followup essay.
I am just generally bothered by how incredibly, unbelievably pedantic it is to fixate on this one point and act as if the whole essay isn't valuable because it took an extra few seconds to read the graph.
But hey, this is the internet. We can ignore the larger points and focus on fine-grained details, and that's normal, right?
If you're seeing a massive amount of problems in your organization AND you have what appears to be a badly broken prioritization/triage/issue tracking process, you need to fix your triage process before you'll be able to solve the real underlying problems.
There's no situation in which opening 500 issues in four months and only closing a tiny fraction of that amount is healthy, regardless of severity or whether they're feature requests or bug reports, or whatever.
The graph makes that point, and I'll hold the fact that this is on the front page of HN, /r/programming, and lobste.rs as evidence of that point being sufficiently informative and well understood by the vast majority of readers.
I would have updated the image on the first report of the issue if I was able to edit the post, but this is an archive from an email newsletter entry. It is worth fixing, and I will fix it in time for the followup essay.
I am just generally bothered by how incredibly, unbelievably pedantic it is to fixate on this one point and act as if the whole essay isn't valuable because it took an extra few seconds to read the graph.
But hey, this is the internet. We can ignore the larger points and focus on fine-grained details, and that's normal, right?