Alyss has been working in tech since 2012, with diverse experience in Sales Engineering, Developer Advocacy, and Product Marketing with companies such as GitHub, Box, Atlassian, and BigCommerce.
What I personally struggle to reconcile is my experience with Jira vs. what I see so many people in the industry do with Jira. You've made a good point that re-factoring communication is a requirement and the same is true of any tool you use. Every organization is as unique as a fingerprint or someone's taste in food. You can't take the way you did Jira (or your favorite foods) and transplant the same style to another team/org (or feed your new boss your cordon blue recipe when she's lactose intolerant).
Similarly, Jira is incredibly complex and understanding those moving parts to create effective communication patterns is difficult. You have to step back and have the experience of solving the problem as well as the wisdom to know what will elicit the correct outcomes.
I think a large part of the problem with JIRA is that there's simply too many options - they're trying to please everyone (and his dog) which just ends up creating about a trillion possible horror configurations for every sane configuration.
I've recently switched to an ultra simple workflow, fields, statuses, etc. - and don't really hate it so much anymore. But the thing is, a tool with about 100 times fewer features could have done exactly what I'm doing with it. And it took 4+ years to work out the details.
So who's winning with a tool like this really?
It just seems, in trying to make it right for everybody, they actually managed to build something that isn't right for anyone at all, because it's simply too complex for most people to understand.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
What I personally struggle to reconcile is my experience with Jira vs. what I see so many people in the industry do with Jira. You've made a good point that re-factoring communication is a requirement and the same is true of any tool you use. Every organization is as unique as a fingerprint or someone's taste in food. You can't take the way you did Jira (or your favorite foods) and transplant the same style to another team/org (or feed your new boss your cordon blue recipe when she's lactose intolerant).
Similarly, Jira is incredibly complex and understanding those moving parts to create effective communication patterns is difficult. You have to step back and have the experience of solving the problem as well as the wisdom to know what will elicit the correct outcomes.
When people complain about jira, they’re really complaining about how their managers have used jira and similar tools.
Definitely a people problem through and through.
I've never met a dev saying "I love Jira, it's my favorite tool" :D
As @preciselyalyss said, it's quite complex (though it got better in the last few years).
I think this complexity is by design though, because Jira is marketed to managers, not to developers.
I think a large part of the problem with JIRA is that there's simply too many options - they're trying to please everyone (and his dog) which just ends up creating about a trillion possible horror configurations for every sane configuration.
I've recently switched to an ultra simple workflow, fields, statuses, etc. - and don't really hate it so much anymore. But the thing is, a tool with about 100 times fewer features could have done exactly what I'm doing with it. And it took 4+ years to work out the details.
So who's winning with a tool like this really?
It just seems, in trying to make it right for everybody, they actually managed to build something that isn't right for anyone at all, because it's simply too complex for most people to understand.