I mean, I agree with that. Maybe “non-committal” isn’t necessarily the best word. I’m mostly saying, assuming that POs realize backlog won’t get prioritized nor they’ll be gifted money to work on it, they should lean into that fact more.
They could sort backlog for chance of ever becoming relevant enough again and then delete the lower 90%.
Or I don’t know, any card that sits around for more than 6 month is deleted. I’ve rarely seen an issue older than 6 months that wasn’t wildly outdated anyways.
Or my preferred flavor of chaos: If it’s actually a problem, you don’t need a card on a board to remind yourself of it. You want a card for the when and how, but not that you need to do it.
In my experience, that’s not a problem of commitment, but rather budgeting and priorities.
There’s always something more urgent than that one refactoring ticket, but you also don’t want to effectively delete a clear indication of a problem.
I mean, I agree with that. Maybe “non-committal” isn’t necessarily the best word. I’m mostly saying, assuming that POs realize backlog won’t get prioritized nor they’ll be gifted money to work on it, they should lean into that fact more.
They could sort backlog for chance of ever becoming relevant enough again and then delete the lower 90%.
Or I don’t know, any card that sits around for more than 6 month is deleted. I’ve rarely seen an issue older than 6 months that wasn’t wildly outdated anyways.
Or my preferred flavor of chaos: If it’s actually a problem, you don’t need a card on a board to remind yourself of it. You want a card for the when and how, but not that you need to do it.