Reply to comment

but there isn't. Because it did come to that. :-)

and let's be frank - Jira sucks. It really does. I have used many open source tracking systems, and I have a good feel for what sucks. This thing hasn't been made friendly at the least, and I'm a person with a technical background saying that... I can't imagine a non-technical person wrestling with that interface for the first time.

"As I've said elsewhere, I'd rather suggest a potential solution and be shown why it's wrong than posit no solution at all."... I can go with that.

But the whole basis on verifieds versus unverifieds itself cannot be proven without some statistics, so it's very shakey (at best). I believe if you're going to propose a solution, you should have your foot on solid ground. I would think the first thing that the open letter should have asked for is the data so that the community can give sensible solutions. LL has neglected to do so for some time, and cutting off communication with the residents seems pretty much like 'circling the wagons'. So the open letter didn't ask for anything that would support it's solutions, it didn't have supporting data that demonstrated the solutions might be valid, and it demonstrated the 'verified vs. unverified' argument in Yet Another Iteration. Frankly, I don't even think the letter had a solution in there - just some snipes at unverified accounts. It might have been effective to say "your paying customers don't like this" instead of saying "punish those people who do not pay". And maybe they do pay, somehow. Who knows? The world is a big place, bigger than PayPal or credit card access.

A lot of these issues are related to network latency based on what I have been finding in discussion and personal experience, but are explained away with silence for the most part.