There are two different things going on here that need to be treated differently: (1) submitting feature requests and (2) submitting problem reports.
I'll tackle the easy one first. Right now, unless the project has a project-specific method for submitting a problem report, the best solution for technical issues is to submit problem reports using the feedback links on the web site. It's not ideal, but it is what exists. That feedback makes it way to a team that will then work on getting it to the right place.
IF it is a clerk-related tool and you are in that capacity and it is
blocking the work, the Global Service Center is another option. A clerk calling the GSC because they are unable to activate recommends is appropriate. Anyone (clerk or not) calling the GSC to complain that their young men leaders don't currently have access to quorum lists is not appropriate and could quickly overwhelm a finite resource.
Some projects have established direct feedback channels. For example, Member Tools has a feedback function that sends an email to the Member Tools team. That feedback is reviewed by a church service missionary that works directly with that team. If it is a technical issue (something is broken), that becomes a bug report and the team can act on it. Feature requests don't go to the development team. They will be routed to project management.
That kind of interface doesn't exist for every project. In some cases, the volume of feedback would overwhelm the development team and they wouldn't have any option except to just ignore it. For example, when LCR is in beta, feedback from the beta (only) used to be routed to a different system where the team could review it to see whether there were defects that needed to be addressed during the beta process. Handling all of that feedback was a pretty big task and that was only for a subset of the users.
Yes, you can submit tickets for facilities issues through a standard interface and they get to the right person. That works because your problem report is associated with a specific building. That building is associated with a specific facility management group and the report is routed to that FM group. Someone at the FM office processes the report, they know which building you're talking about, and they dispatch one of the FM mechanics to address it.
That doesn't work when it comes to software. If you have an issue with LCR, there may be one of several teams that needs to address that based on what part of LCR it is related to. To create some standardized bug reporting system would require a new project to be spun up to build out a system for managing a database of projects and routing feedback based on that. If it comes down to building something that makes it easier for you to submit bug reports or building something that makes it more efficient for a bishop to accomplish an important task for his ward, the bishop is going to win every single time.
Posting problems here will potentially help you find a solution if it is a problem that some other community member has solved. Posting here is not a method for contacting a development team. There isn't an official Church presence here, even though some of us have "Church employee" name badges by our names.
As for submitting feature requests ... there are a lot of people who aren't submitted bug reports but are instead asking for functionality changes. This is where your comment about waiting for reports to trickle up through leaders comes into play.
First, let me first make a few things clear:
#1 - Developers do not typically make feature decisions. While they have some input into the process as things are designed and have a more direct route to suggest features, they don't make the final decisions.
#2 - You don't make feature decisions. These projects are not open-source projects where somebody comes up with a great idea that they suggest implementing, a bunch of people "+1" the message, and then someone who thinks it is a neat idea goes and builds it.
When it comes to determining what goes into a product, product managers work with councils that are responsible for those products. They decide which features are appropriate given Church policy, legal constraints, and other concerns. Those decisions then become development tasks.
So, if there is some feature that you feel really needs to be implemented, you have a few options:
* You can come rant on the forums. That won't accomplish much.
* You can send feedback. That should make its way to a product manager who can bring up appropriate suggestions as potential enhancements. And then it might get implemented. Or it might get dismissed. There are plenty of things that people suggest that aren't going to make it into a product because they don't align with Church policy, legal requirements, or the priorities of an application.
* Stake presidents have access to an area seventy who has a more direct route to the departments responsible for products. If they feel strongly that a change in functionality would improve the work, they can make that suggestion to that area seventy who is a position to make that suggestion to the appropriate departments if he feels it is worthwhile. This is the game of "telephone" you're talking about. Even those suggestions might not make it into a product. My stake president has a feature change that he feels strongly about and he and I have talked about it extensively. He also knows that it's just not going to happen. Sorry, president.
There is a subset of users here who are happy to rant about how the Church IT department screwed up or the development team blew it because they didn't do something that is perfectly obvious to the person making the rant. My suggestion: "
stop it." You may have great ideas and you may even be a great software developer, but you don't know the details of those things you criticize. The thing that is perfectly obvious to you may have been discussed extensively and ruled out for any one of a number of reasons. As I said a few weeks ago, "
there are plenty of talented people working on the issues and telling them how to do their jobs seems a bit presumptuous."
