User: "I don't have access to the space that a co-worker has send me."
Us: "Do you mean a Jira Space or a Confluence Space?"
"An eternity later..."
User: "Jira".
Us: "Ah, thank you. I will have a look for you."
---
This change doesn't make sense at all. I do get changing the name in Jira to something other than 'Project'. But come on. Please use a name that was not already present in Confluence. This is going to be so confusing.
Got a question in regards of those users which will be trying to migrate from DC to Cloud due to DC decommission?
How JMCA will manage migration of filters which was using: project = "something" ? Will this be automatically converted to "new way" which is used Cloud? or will it be broken and manual fix ( project is now space) - for all migrated filters needed?
Stop, please just stop. I don't know how else to say it and I'm fairly certain no one is listening anyways... this is change for the sake of change. "Spaces" is already in use and will just confuse end-users. You've become too 'in the weeds' with your own products and forget what it's like for a new user to adopt this vs. other platforms. Listen to your allies who are trying to champion your tools within their organizations and walk this one back. It's utter nonsense and creates noise at the executive level when budgets are already being scrutinized. At a time when every org is making decisions about what is mission critical, I'd suggest strengthening your partnerships, not finding creative ways to drive a wedge between your products and your customers.
How about this... for projects that are actually projects, create a concept where projects actually go into and "space" (bad name btw) for the non-project stuff. some of us actually have projects but we also have workspaces (that's a better name).
Space in Jira and Space in Confluence are very confusing now.
Should we be changing our roles from project-admins to space-admins now but needing to specify that it's JIRA-space-admin and not CONFLUENCE-space-admin? it's soo confusing now!! instead of changing the name of projects, just create a new category of work that's operational-oriented. The opposite of Projects is Operations. That would be been a way better name compared to "Spaces".
I still don't understand how Atlassian Projects even interact with our jira software project types, oh wait. can't call it a project type anymore. It's a space type now.
stop changing names, it's prohibitively expensive and needlessly confusing. like how Toronto decided to change the street Dundas Street because it had slavery connotations and it ends up costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
instead, focus on bringing more value. a name change does not bring value to its customers. we're paying a lot as is and it's getting more confusing and convoluted. My job is to smooth the riot from happening internally so that we keep Jira and Confluence.
Personally, I find this latest change from projects to spaces a serious irritation. So we have spaces in Confluence and now spaces in Jira. I think Atlassian need to "apply their minds" more when thinking of more ways to disrupt their clients. LAstly, I think Atlassian need to slow down with all these major changes to the applications. If something works, don't break it.
@Josh SherwoodI’m curious whether the Atlassian team is fully aware of the significant pushback this change is generating...
The introduction of “Spaces” in Jira has received widespread criticism, and many comments expressing concern have been met with strong agreement from the community. Yet, there appears to be little acknowledgment or engagement from Atlassian on any of these concerns. As one commenter aptly stated, this feels like “a solution in search of a problem.” Why alter something that no one requested? None of us - whether managing a few licenses or, as in our case, 2,400—were looking for a “Space” for collaboration. We invested in Jira as a project management tool. This shift marks the transformation of Jira into a product that many of us would not have chosen in its current direction.
Atlassian often emphasizes its commitment to supporting agile practices, but this change seems disconnected from customer needs. Why is there no visible effort to review these decisions with stakeholders or incorporate user feedback? Listening to your customers is a cornerstone of agile, and right now, that principle feels overlooked. - Casper
"For many teams, 'projects' are often understood to have defined start and end dates, hierarchical structures, and clear scopes. However, Jira ‘projects’ function differently – they're containers for work, not tied to the traditional definition of a project.
Furthermore, we've recently introduced Atlassian Projects, purpose-built to provide high-level visibility into work with defined timelines, goals, and stakeholders. By renaming Jira 'projects' to 'spaces,' we’re making it easier to distinguish between these two features and their unique purposes."
So....Atlassian Projects are addressing the ability to have defined timelines, goals and stakeholders.
Help me understand how the current Project functionality limits the ability to do the above?
Lastly, this statement...."However, Jira ‘projects’ function differently – they're containers for work, not tied to the traditional definition of a project."
So... the traditional definition of a project isn't a container for work? What is it then? If the general idea of "projects" has "defined start and end dates, hierarchical structures, and clear scopes," then how is that not related to some sort of work product?
To the executive management of Atlassian...can you not see that the above seems to just serve itself and not be a 100% value-add for many current users who just want to get work done and be able to depend on a product to only make changes if it truly is going to make their jobs easier?
This doesn't appear to be one of those changes and seems to meet the definition of an Excel circular reference error.
For those who are responding with the agreement that the change is necessary, help me to understand the logic behind that.
If you or your company purchased Jira licensing, it was with the understanding of it being a "Project Management" tool. Even if it was included in a suite of products and was never your initial deciding factor, the fact it is a tool specifically for managing projects should have been well understood before use.
By indicating now that the word "Project" never made any sense to "how we use it" only implies you were trying to use the wrong tool for what you wanted to do. That would be like someone purchasing a hammer and using it to drive in screws. Yes it can technically get the job done, but deciding to change the name from hammer to screw driver because "that is how I use it" would make no sense.
I am just completely baffled as to why this is even a decision from Atlassian as well as any agreements to it from users.
61 comments