I read something recently that suggested that the health of an open source project and its community could be largely assessed by reviewing the status of the bug tracker. I'm still trying to track down the citation for this remark. This basically says that vital active projects have regularly updated bugs that are clearly described and that bugs be easy to search and easy to submit.
I'm not sure that free software communities and projects can be so easily assessed or that conventional project management practices are the only meaningful way to judge a project's health. While we're at it, I don't know that it's terribly useful to focus too much attention or importance on project management. Having said that, the emergence of organizational structure is incredibly fascinating, and could probably tolerate more investigation.
As a starting point, I'd like to offer two conjectures:
- First, that transparent issue tracking is a reasonably effective means of "customer service," or user support. If the bug tracking contains answers to questions that people encounter during use, and provide a way to resolve issues with the software that's productive and helps with support self-service. Obviously some users and groups of users are better at this than others.
- Second, issue tracking is perhaps the best way to do bottom-up project/product management and planning in the open, particularly since these kinds or projects lack formal procedures and designated roles to do this kind of organizational work.
While the overriding goal of personal task management is to break things into the smallest manageable work units, the overriding goal of issue tracking systems is to track the most intellectually discrete issues within a single project through the development process. Thus, issue tracking systems have requirements that are either much less important in personal systems or actively counter-intuitive for other uses. They are:
- Task assignment, so that specific issues can be assigned different team members. Ideally this gets a specific developer can "own" a specific portion of the project and actually be able to work and coordinate efforts on the project.
- Task prioritization, so that less important or crucial issues get attention before "nice to have," items are addressed.
- Issue comments and additional attached information, to track progress and support information sharing among teams, particularly over long periods of time with asynchronous elements.
While it's nice to be able to integrate tasks and notes (this is really the core of org-mode's strength) issue tracking systems need to be able to accommodate error output and discussion from a team on the best solution, as well as discussion about the ideal solution.
The truth is that a lot of projects don't do a very good job of using issue tracking systems, despite how necessary and important bug trackers. The prefabricated systems can be frustrating and difficult to use, and most of the minimalist systems  are hard to use in groups.  The first person to write a fully featured, lightweight, and easy to use issue tracking system will be incredibly successful. Feel free to submit a patch to this post, if you're aware of a viable systems along these lines.
|||I'm thinking about using ikiwiki or org-mode to track issues, but ditz suffers from the same core problem.|
|||Basically, they either sacrifice structure or concurrency features or both. Less structured systems rely on a group of people to capture the same sort of information in a regular way (unlikely) or they capture less information, neither option is tenable. Without concurrency (because they store things in single flat files) people can't use them to manage collaboration, which make them awkward personal task tracking systems.|