syed99

I had a chance to play around with the product and I really love the ease of creating a multi step workflow, to the point where I'm sure I can train my marketing team to use it. That being said, is there a way to share these workflow with others...either privately or publicly?

I guess from the other sub thread below Self Hosting takes away alot of the liabilities of operating the software when you're small, atleast in the a very litigious US and Europe. Larger incumbents eventually have been moving away from that self hosted model to provide consistent service or layer on professional services for those that can afford it.

Thats something we're working on i.e most of our R&D goes here, we've been building up capacity on getting contextual data from the commits/PR's and possibly from slack too and then surfacing it as meta data as a first step. For example being able to identify questions, solutions, possible additions to documentation.

The aim is to eventually pass on that data or use it for smarter inference like catching duplicates, bug frequency, reintroduction of code and possibly identifying tech debt. Our vision has been to go ticketless, while we're supplying the tooling to make those tickets today, in the future contextual information from different systems could provide enough context to do that work.

With GitHub we sync all the issues in real time. So all changes you make in Tara reflect on GitHub issues too. We make it easier for larger teams who run sprints and require a more accessible interface work better together i.e designers, PMs and EMs.

For the Gitlab for the time being we only allow connection of issue tickets to MRs and some organized views of commits and MRs in our progress mode.

It works the same way for the automations but it’s a one click set up for GitHub. It’s makes it easier for Team leads or people who may not have the resources to bind together workflows and it ensures consistency in experience. Secondly we also infer statuses on PRs and through CI/CD that let you know where features are in the pipeline (coming very soon). Our aim is to make powerful git event drive features more accessible with the least amount of configuration.

Git actions speak louder than code

We’ve explored ways to handle this. One of the things we’ve considered is metered billing where you only pay for the time the seat is used. It’s very similar to Github seat model but probably closer to slacks billing system.

Other explorations we did were around finer grained permissions or a collaborator vs assignee. The reason the industry itself is geared towards seats based plans in the is to drive better revenue predictability and handle cost variability between free and paid users better but we’re seeing more and more creative changes to sass billing models.

We had a horrendous experience with on-prem during my last tenure. A lot of it came from lack of support and performance improvements. Atlassian has its way to strong arm it’s biggest customers into paying more or throwing in sub processors in the mix. At some point we had IT, Dev Ops and Engineering consultants trying to get our workflows running.

Eventually we caved and pushed their account execs to support a “secure” private cloud that passed our IT teams compliance criteria. Fun times!

Thanks for clarifying. Yes this would be fairly different and requires an extra layer or configuration on our backend. You’re absolutely right about following the same route to the server per user and since our current configuration allows a workspace level workflow, we would have to write some middleware to handle this use case.

You are absolutely right about a self hosted solution being the better workaround which means it resides on an internally accessible network where the setup experience would be much more seamless.

That’s how we see it too. We didn’t underprice it to simply compete, it’s a mix of how the actual tech is built and how we can keep our net costs per user low. We’re just curious and love to hear how users perceive pricing and want to facilitate a conversation. The major value prop here is around automation; reducing engineering time in manual status updates in tickets and high value actions like assignment or effort prediction.

Sorry to hear that, we just migrated hosts, our page FCP and speed index was around 3 seconds but if that’s not what you experienced, we’re definitely going to take a look into it.

Hi there, we currently don’t have a bitbucket integration but it’s on our roadmap towards the end of the year. We will however be updating our migrate tools early Q4 with Jira/Confluence mapping.

We do plan on supporting kanban views over the next few months. It’s a WIP along with list views.

The question about self hosted git servers, we do support them but not officially through the GitHub app which is on the App Store. We do have a fully compatible backend that can integrate with any self hosted git using webhooks, we haven’t exposed those to users as of yet.

Forgit about it :p

That’s a good point. They do charge for the integrations though per user. Majority of our user base though syncs with github and slack. That is kind of where the compute costs go up specially with GitHub syncs but there are avenues we can explore with upcoming pricing where that’s an option to use the base tool. Thanks for bringing up their pricing plan as an example.

We use Firestore as our DB :) I don’t think git and LFS as a hosting service could take us beyond a hundred users.

Thanks for the clarification, there’s definitely a pathway for us to allow for this in the near future. I think it’s a safer path than running after industry specific compliances.

Makes a lot more sense now, the flexibility to configure to your own resources for regulatory reasons.

Yup they did. Back at my former workplace they basically stopped updates and overlaid it with packages such as support, upgrade packs and more. At the end the price ended up equating to the same cost as the private cloud instance.

I do agree it’s hard, I’d love to know though, if there was a way for you to use the tool internally. How would you envision that happening, could it be a plugin, something working side by side JIRA perhaps?

Its definitely something we've been exploring when putting our product roadmap together. I'm curious though, if we had a private cloud instance vs self hosted? I'd love to understand why self hosted would be the option you'd go for.

Hi ddon, one of the founders here. I personally do agree on flipping the pricing models to be more inclusive. We’ve tried our best to make them as cost effective as possible and even go as far as allowing unlimited users on a free plan.

When we were working on pricing, we looked into everything from compute costs per user, data storage per workspace, new feature development, marketing costs and much more over the span of time. We came up with our pricing based off those costs and hence on our lower plans we’re still under the price of similar tools.

We’d love to, in the future figure out more flexible ways to price our users but at the same time maintain the service and growing feature set. I can assure you that we definitely gave having a Spotify family plan like pricing model a thought. In the mean time we are working with startups to accommodate their needs as they move into paid plans by offering discounts on long term commitments, we’re always open to discussions with our users and helping them stay empowered on our platform.

Hi, it might be a cache issue with your user object. I’d suggest navigating to app.tara.ai/logout and then try logging back in.

Ha! Yes to some extent it would but that would really mean either a) we decided to run recommendations using a sparse model or b) we never validated the data or kept a watch on models when they were trained/retrained. This type of manipulation is typically likely when you're much larger and have alot of bots involved on the platform.

Hey! Co-founder/CTO of Tara here.

We take privacy around your data very seriously. We're thinking about the ML training model as a "walled garden", ie recommendations are based on your past sprint activity, effort load, tasks completed during a sprint, etc. and are exclusive to your organization.

In the future, if we decided to do benchmarking (for eg quick recommendations on how companies in your industry are running sprints), we would have a double opt-in. This would mean anonymizing the data, and providing the recommendations an opt-in. Basically, very similar to how google's autocomplete email recommendations work.

I agree sourceMaps shouldn't be exposed and they also bloat up production code. The reason we have them exposed for the time being is for debugging purposes in open beta and we intend to remove it out of production in our upcoming weekly release.

It's a mix of both latency and lack of optimistic updates. We're working on improving our front-end at the moment and some of those improvements relate to optimistic loads and improvements on redux that go in every week.

Regulations, Big Pharma and Legacy Software will all take years to change, changing the behavior of an industry is usually pioneered by a few and in medicine that's pretty tough.

All is not lost though, startups that make software for healthcare are slowly taking hold of the market, but all those startups that have been killed off in the process have made a change for the newer ones to get this far.

I've always used both server side analytics and JS based analytics, some external analytics tools have been long in a black list by EasyPrivacy and their constant addition and removal of those services from that list means sporadic stat charts.

The only problem with server side analytics is that they're pretty limited with functionality unless you have your own internal analytics system which can track alot more information than just page views and general traffic stats.

If they were using stripe how did they pass details through onto HTTP? as far as I remember their webhook won't even communicate with an unsecure page. They must be using some other payment gateway.