Skip to content

Improve the feature proposal issue template

Nadia Sotnikova requested to merge edit-feature-proposal-template into master

What does this MR do?

This MR addresses the proposed improvements for the feature proposal issue template as discussed in #208406 (closed) .

The changes I've made:

  • At the top of the template I added a hint for which sections are most important and which sections can be filled out at which stages.
  • "Further details" section has been removed as it’s redundant, and any details can be added to the "Problem", "Solution" or "Links/ references" section.
  • Added information for how to make the problem statement more user-centric. In my opinion, the problem section could benefit from being more user-centric.
  • In the "User personas" section I moved the link to all personas to the top of the section. That way the issue author can read through all personas before copying the correct ones to the issue body.
  • Removed the user journeys link from proposal section, that link doesn't contain helpful information for how to define a user journey. https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/journeys/#user-journey
  • Slightly changes the formatting in some places (for ex. added bullet points) to increase readability.
  • Added a link to the information on buyer personas to the "Type of buyer" section.

I made this MR WIP so we can collaborate on the changes as a team. Any feedback and ideas are greatly appreciated! ❤

Here are some questions I've been asking myself:

  • Do we have a more helpful resource for writing down a user journey than https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/journeys/#user-journey ? I don't think this page is helpful to someone writing down a user journey for the first time, there's no helpful guidelines there.
  • What is a helpful link we could provide for the Permissions section? That section in of itself is unclear to me, I wouldn't know what information to add.
  • Do we have a helpful recourse for determining what success and acceptance criteria of the feature should look like?
  • Is there a way to further simplify the wording we use in any of the sections to make the guidelines more clear and succinct, especially to those not as familiar with our product workflow and all the related terminology?

Screenshots

Does this MR meet the acceptance criteria?

Conformity

Availability and Testing

Security

If this MR contains changes to processing or storing of credentials or tokens, authorization and authentication methods and other items described in the security review guidelines:

  • Label as security and @ mention @gitlab-com/gl-security/appsec
  • The MR includes necessary changes to maintain consistency between UI, API, email, or other methods
  • Security reports checked/validated by a reviewer from the AppSec team
Edited by Nadia Sotnikova

Merge request reports