Missing source and context on "user story" and "task" templates
Description
Issues being captured are consistently missing a few key details:
The source of the issue
- Where did this requirement come from?
- Who requested it or what user group requested it?
- Was there a specific meeting
The context / reason why something is needed
This is particularly prevalent on "task" type issues.
Arguably, this should be in "further details" as it should contain "why it is relevant". In practice, users aren't consistently reading these comment descriptions and filling this in. So a dedicated heading with a clear heading may encourage this to be documented more.
Further details
We're seeing a lot of issues going into sprints where we struggle to trace back where an issue came from, what group it's needed for (on task style ones), and why it's needed.
In particular, task issues to just "change x to y", users are consistently just documenting the change and not why: if it's come from user testing, feedback from a particular group, the reasons for changing it.