Question

From what i have read so far on FogBugz,it seems that it was never intended for a strict workflow, with only reviewers having to determine who closes a case.

The strict workflow is something that an FDA regulated or a similar organization with strict governance\regulations would need to have. Whenever I have personally worked with FogBugz(its not been much) it seems that the system is open ended with some loose ends that can be ignored and some that can't be ignored in a regulated environment.

Do you agree with me?

Your feedback is highly appreciated.

Answer 1

It's true that with the current workflow design, you cannot prevent a user from resolving or closing a case. However, you can force the resolution to assign to the reviewer so that they are notified. Nobody can close a case silently.

Alternatively, you can run a search like "status:closed -closedby:reviewer". Tell your employees you will run that query once a week and if their name shows up, they're fired. :)

A regulation that says "X is not allowed to do Y" could mean the software doesn't let that happen or it could mean you have a written policy that everybody signs. It's up to you (or your auditor) to determine what the regulation really requires.

Answer 2

I was about to ask a similar question after reviewing the version 7 documentation and hoping that maybe this was fixed in version 8. I completely agree with the following statement by cdeszaq:

In an ideal world, FogBugz would be able to operate in both modes. The default could be loose and open, as it is, but there should also be a mechanism, perhaps a plugin, that allows for a much more locked-down workflow that can be highly configured based on organizational requirements.

It seems like workflow is a misnomer. It's more like a simple tag. Unfortunately, this will be a deal breaker for me as well, and I already spent influence points trying to move away from Rational Change :(

Answer 3

I agree. FogBugz's workflow is very loose and open-ended, and based on what I have read, it is this way by design. Fog Creek has, a number of times, posted about this and in general the reasoning is that they don't want the tool to get in the way of it's own users.

Personally, I enjoy the flexibility myself because it lets me do things how I want, but at the same time there are very few checks in place to guide new or less comfortable users into using the tool the way the organisation thinks is best.

In an ideal world, FogBugz would be able to operate in both modes. The default could be loose and open, as it is, but there should also be a mechanism, perhaps a plugin, that allows for a much more locked-down workflow that can be highly configured based on organizational requirements.

Answer 4

A requirement for an issues log of a product to be presented to a regulatory authority is that it needs to go through a workflow and also needs to be approved by appropriate stakeholders at different stages.

In a organization with approximately 6500 users either Reviewers, Modifiers and contractors it is not possible to expect that everyone will do as told. Hence it is necessary to force them through a workflow. This is why I think a restrictive workflow is required.

Answer 5

I agree with Ted's answer and would just like to add that while you cannot prevent a case edit from happening, a plugin can perform its own edits. You might be able to use a plugin to reopen or reassign a case if an action is performed which shouldn't be.

See also Rich's response to this very similar question.