Tighten Jira-as-system-of-record into active enforcement — instruct teams to ignore Slack-only requests
Situation
All significant work must be in Jira to count as a commitment. Peter will instruct teams to actively ignore requests that exist only in Slack. This escalates the Apr 18 quality decision from policy ('ticket your work') to enforcement ('we will refuse to act on un-ticketed requests'). Justin owns the enforcement in Build/Test/Deployment, the function most contaminated by ad-hoc Slack asks.
Reasoning
The Apr 18 decision didn't fully take. Slack-only requests were still being absorbed by engineering as commitments, creating invisible work. Push the cost back to the requester: if Justin's team doesn't act on Slack-only asks, the requester has to file the ticket. Externalizing the friction is the point. Also reinforces the 4/11 'Product owns exit criteria' decision — same theme: commitments must live in a system, not in a conversation.
Additional Context
Came up in Justin 1:1 alongside post-mortem (COE) philosophy discussion. Justin is the right enforcement owner because Build/Test/Deployment receives the most cross-functional ad-hoc requests. Will affect Bjorn/Brady/Brian/sales when they discover their Slack asks now bounce back to Jira.
Observed Evidence
Fathom Justin 1:1 summary key takeaway. Tightening of Apr 18 decision visible because the language is enforcement-flavored, not policy-flavored.
Matching Patterns
Confidence Breakdown
Reasoning Depth Analysis
Related Context
fathom
All significant work must be in Jira to be considered a commitment. Peter will instruct teams to ignore requests made only in Slack, which is not a system of record.
Outcome
No outcome recorded yet.
Decision ID: 4c21cdf9-0a28-46ea-bbd7-ca68896daf14