[jamesfinlayson]

Had a clueless business analyst get Copilot to write a bunch of stories for an epic, then when she had a meeting with me (and three other people!) to go through the stories I had to tell them that 90% of what they had done was wrong.

If they'd come to me from the outset I could have told them the one story title and handful of acceptance criteria that was required but instead we wasted 5 person hours and whatever Copilot costs.

[netsharc]

Without context it reads like you work in a publisher that publishes fiction...

[spacechild1]

I thought the same. Business lingo has really jumped the shark. "story" is already stupid enough, but "epic"? Seriously? :-D

[jamesfinlayson]

I assumed this was standard terminology for Jira? It's been the same for me at two completely different tech companies.

[spacechild1]

It might be standard terminology but to outsiders like me it sounds like an over-the-top parody of corporate speak.

[hakfoo]

I always hoped we could make "cinematic universe" for really enormous refactorings.

[jamesfinlayson]

I thought there was a new level above epic - theme I think?

[jamesfinlayson]

I don't disagree - I worked on a task management system many years ago and task and subtask always made a lot more sense than story and task. And epic should just be project.

[happymellon]

It's the brittle systems that try and force a peg in a hole regardless of size or shape.

I've worked with customers who stories worked well because the concept is just to talk through use-cases. Others have been involved in building software previously and it's overkill.

Current corpo job uses the phrase stories, but refuses to get involved with any planning or spec building so task and subtask would make more sense, but subtasks aren't visible on the board and we aren't allowed to update it.

We also aren't allowed to move a task back, so every time someone accidentally moves the wrong task we have to cancel it and recreate it. Such a pain.