Until now, development has proceeded pretty loosely - we work on whatever seems cool at the time. This is fine but if we collaborate on a decision about priorities then perhaps we’ll all be pulling in the same direction a bit more often. If the decision is made in public with all stakeholders, perhaps we’ll get some buy-in.
Let’s try this: each of us pick up to 5 issues from the issue queue that are important and up to 5 issues that are urgent. If an issue is both important and urgent, include it in both lists - these are the issues we really want to highlight.
After a few days we’ll collate the results and try to find issues that most people think are both important and urgent.
This process is open to anyone who regularly uses PieFed.
I find my experience here has been mostly solid, so I think you mostly have your priorities right. It’s also fun to see experimentation with new features every now and then, so I’m not sure I would even like to see a shift towards focusing only on important stuff.
I think there’s a lot of potential in better integration with services outside of the Threadiverse, and this is something Lemmy has been notoriously bad at (and its developers seemingly uninterested in). Not that PieFed should become like Kbin and serve two separate functions, but there’s a lot to be achieved in both ends by making the services more interoperable. There might be some sort of place for both boosts and hashtags, while leading @mentions might sometimes be justifiably hidden. More than important I guess I would find it fun.
As for what’s urgent, ensuring core functionality and GDPR compliance seems like a fair priority.