The decision and the ticket are in different products
The reason a task exists was a conversation. The task is a title and two lines written afterwards. Whoever picks it up later gets the two lines.
Use case · engineering
Enclessa keeps engineering work and the discussion about it in one product: GitHub issues and pull requests sync onto boards, the check rollup and review decision appear on the card, and every card carries a link back to the channel and message the work came out of. Boards belong to a team and inherit its roles, so there is no second permission model to administer, and the API, webhooks and slash commands cover the tooling the connector does not.
Open betaThe platform is being built in the open, so parts of it are not there yet, behaviour changes between releases, and no availability figure is committed while it is in beta. What is still being built.
A team ships software. The code is in GitHub, the planning is in a project tool, the conversation is in a chat product, and the relationship between the three exists only in the heads of the people who were present. Every question of the form "why is this like this" is answered by somebody remembering, or not.
The reason a task exists was a conversation. The task is a title and two lines written afterwards. Whoever picks it up later gets the two lines.
Issues are duplicated as cards and then maintained twice, which lasts about three weeks. After that the board is decoration and the standup is spent asking what is actually happening.
The project tool has its own idea of who is in which project, drifting steadily away from who is in which team, and audited by nobody.
Whether the pull request attached to this work is green is a question that requires opening another tab, which means it gets asked less often than it should.
A board belongs to a team and uses that team’s roles, so the people who can see the channel are the people who can see the work. There is no separate project membership to maintain and no chance of the two disagreeing.
An administrator makes one connection with a GitHub App or a personal access token, and it covers GitHub.com or GitHub Enterprise Server. Somebody who may manage boards then links a specific board to a repository, a Projects v2 project, or both.
Board columns map onto the Status field of a GitHub Projects v2 project, so moving a card and moving a project item mean the same thing rather than two things that have to be reconciled.
A pull request that closes an issue attaches to that issue’s card instead of becoming a second card, and the card shows the check rollup and the review decision. Whether the work is ready is visible from the board.
Write-back to GitHub is a per-organisation setting. Leave it off and the connector reads; turn it on and moving a card moves the project item. Either way it is a decision somebody made rather than a default that surprised them.
When a discussion in a channel turns into work, make the card from the message. The link back survives, so the next person to read the card can read the argument behind it, and a card can be filed as a new GitHub issue from here.
Boards and the GitHub connector are both on the Team plan and above, and GitHub requires Boards because the things it syncs are board cards. Webhooks, slash commands, bot accounts and API tokens are on the same plans. The channels and threads work on any plan.
Compare the plansCreate a workspace in a couple of minutes. It is yours at your-team.enclessa.app, hosted in the European Union, with encrypted direct messages from the first one you send.
Open beta. Free plan, no payment card to start.