Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Software Issue Tracking Transparency - Good Or Bad?
First time accepted submitter Mike Sheen writes I'm the lead developer for an Australian ERP software outfit. For the last 10 years or so we've been using Bugzilla as our issue tracking system. I made this publicly available to the degree than anyone could search and view bugs. Our software is designed to be extensible and as such we have a number of 3rd party developers making customization and integrating with our core product.
We've been pumping out builds and publishing them as "Development Stream (Experimental / Unstable" and "Release Stream (Stable)", and this is visible on our support site to all. We had been also providing a link next to each build with the text showing the number of bugs fixed and the number of enhancements introduced, and the URL would take them to the Bugzilla list of issues for that milestone which were of type bug or enhancement.
This had been appreciated by our support and developer community, as they can readily see what issues are addressed and what new features have been introduced. Prior to us exposing our Bugzilla database publicly we produced a sanitized list of changes — which was time consuming to produce and I decided was unnecessary given we could just expose the "truth" with simple links to the Bugzilla search related to that milestone.
The sales and marketing team didn't like this. Their argument is that competitors use this against us to paint us as producers of buggy software. I argue that transparency is good, and beneficial — and whilst our competitors don't publish such information — but if we were to follow our competitors practices we simply follow them in the race to the bottom in terms of software quality and opaqueness.
In my opinion, transparency of software issues provides:
Identification of which release or build a certain issue is fixed.
Recognition that we are actively developing the software.
Incentive to improve quality controls as our "dirty laundry" is on display.
Information critical to 3rd party developers.
A projection of integrity and honesty.
I've yielded to the sales and marketing demands such that we no longer display the links next to each build for fixes and enhancements, and now publish "Development Stream (Experimental / Unstable" as simply "Development Stream") but I know what is coming next — a request to no longer make our Bugzilla database publicly accessible. I still have the Bugzilla database publicly exposed, but there is now only no longer the "click this link to see what we did in this build".
A compromise may be to make the Bugzilla database only visible to vetted resellers and developers — but I'm resistant to making a closed "exclusive" culture. I value transparency and recognize the benefits. The sales team are insistent that exposing such detail is a bad thing for sales.
I know by posting in a community like Slashdot that I'm going to get a lot of support for my views, but I'm also interested in what people think about the viewpoint that such transparency could be bad thing.
We've been pumping out builds and publishing them as "Development Stream (Experimental / Unstable" and "Release Stream (Stable)", and this is visible on our support site to all. We had been also providing a link next to each build with the text showing the number of bugs fixed and the number of enhancements introduced, and the URL would take them to the Bugzilla list of issues for that milestone which were of type bug or enhancement.
This had been appreciated by our support and developer community, as they can readily see what issues are addressed and what new features have been introduced. Prior to us exposing our Bugzilla database publicly we produced a sanitized list of changes — which was time consuming to produce and I decided was unnecessary given we could just expose the "truth" with simple links to the Bugzilla search related to that milestone.
The sales and marketing team didn't like this. Their argument is that competitors use this against us to paint us as producers of buggy software. I argue that transparency is good, and beneficial — and whilst our competitors don't publish such information — but if we were to follow our competitors practices we simply follow them in the race to the bottom in terms of software quality and opaqueness.
In my opinion, transparency of software issues provides:
Identification of which release or build a certain issue is fixed.
Recognition that we are actively developing the software.
Incentive to improve quality controls as our "dirty laundry" is on display.
Information critical to 3rd party developers.
A projection of integrity and honesty.
I've yielded to the sales and marketing demands such that we no longer display the links next to each build for fixes and enhancements, and now publish "Development Stream (Experimental / Unstable" as simply "Development Stream") but I know what is coming next — a request to no longer make our Bugzilla database publicly accessible. I still have the Bugzilla database publicly exposed, but there is now only no longer the "click this link to see what we did in this build".
A compromise may be to make the Bugzilla database only visible to vetted resellers and developers — but I'm resistant to making a closed "exclusive" culture. I value transparency and recognize the benefits. The sales team are insistent that exposing such detail is a bad thing for sales.
I know by posting in a community like Slashdot that I'm going to get a lot of support for my views, but I'm also interested in what people think about the viewpoint that such transparency could be bad thing.
For a change - Sales and Marketing are right
Never EVER hang dirty laundry in public
You might want trusted tech users to see your bug tracker but no one else!
It will scare people who don't understand bug tracking and give your competitors easy shots
I second this. If your product is closed source and sold for profit, there is no reason to publicly put our your bugzilla.
As a Netsuite admin, I am fully aware of most of their issues through their private user forums as well as my own use. They provide "visibility" into bugs that you found and ones you request to be "attached" to. I feel this is a good approach. It shields the "problems" from management, competitors, and potential customers/investors about ongoing problems and how long they may take to be addressed.
Stop thinking like a developer. Look at this from an outside perspective. It's not flattering.
I have karma to burn. tl;dr - Listen to sales or at the most only make it available to (developers working at) current customers
I'm the lead sales for an Australian ERP software outfit. For the last ten years, we have got an increasing number of competitors breathing down our throats, and the marketplace has become very crowded. Our market has very little vendor lock-in or product differentiation at this point.
One of our lead developers has made our bug tracking list public facing. This is making our life very difficult. Potential clients google our product and see a huge list of bugs. Just a few days ago a huge deal fell through because of this. Our potential customer was horrified that we can't handle dates correctly (it actually has a problem only after 10,400AD), or that the database gets corrupted sometimes (if someone sets of an EMP when data is being written).
When we bring this to our lead dev, he gets moral and claims we shouldn't be in a race-to-the-bottom with our competitors, while ignoring the prisoner's dilemma. Also, while other developers appreciate this transparency, the managers who have the authority to make purchase decisions are scared off by the bug list (and our competitors include our bug list in their sales pitch to scare our current and potential customers - "See? Everyone knows their bugs. It is only hours before you get hacked unless you switch to our product!!"). This is costing us a lot of money that we need to pay people like the lead dev.
We might even be willing to let developers working at our current customers view the bug list, since developers understand and appreciate this. But this lead dev is resistant to that as well. So how can we him to stop making our lives much harder than it already is?