[Jenk]

I've found the first, and most important, step for any team or organisation to eliminate concerns with NFRs, "tech debt", and whatever else it may be called, is to stop giving it a name.

I'm being completely serious. By giving it some kind of distinct name, you are giving license to it being ring-fenced and de-prioritised by someone who doesn't (but, arguably, probably should) know better.

Quality matters. It hits your P&L very quickly and very hard if you don't maintain it. So it is as important as any other factor.

[zaphar]

This is so important. This is your job as a software engineer. It shouldn't exist on a roadmap or get added to tickets. It should just be done in the course of your work.

If it does end up as a ticket that means you did something wrong in the implementation of a feature and that lack of quality got noticed. A business person is not qualified to weigh in on the importance of these things. All they know is "The page needs to load in $time", "The data should stay consistent", ...

You are the one who determines the how and quality maintenance is on you.

[Exoristos]

Name it "not done yet." But, yes, very keen observation here.

[inanutshellus]

I like the idea of not naming it.

I treat it like housekeeping and treat features like hosting a party. Guests/stakeholders are people who want what you can make. The party is the feature they want.

They don't care whether it was difficult or easy for you to clean the house. They just assume keep your own house tidy ... and they know you don't when you only host once a quarter instead of once a month.

They assume you're a functional adult who manages his own space.

Tech debt is like that.

Thus - the business folk don't get a say in whether it's in the sprint - cuz it's not "the party". Instead it's your Scrum Master or whatever saying "hey kids - clean the mirrors and Jane this time you're sanitizing the toilet."