Firstly - whoa, quite a lot of old requests across the network were looked at, and retagged. The effort is appreciated. I do feel like there could have been better visibility, as Dan Mašek alludes to in the comments that - it had been announced first, and a follow-up posted to let folks know of the outcome
In general, while it occasionally makes sense to knock off a whole load of work/technical debt at one, it's also stuff that's accumulated over time. It is heartening to see the issues on hand are understood by folks, but there's also a matter of considering the core issues
it is not as effective as we’d like it to be at producing responses to the posts you’re escalating, nor at ensuring good backlog hygiene — at least not without regular coordinated clean-up efforts.
In a sense, many parts of the public platform are somewhat 'mostly' bugfixes at best, duct tape and good intentions at most. Since I was ana MSE mod for a good chunk of the time since the current process started - I'd say to a significant extent, non 'bug' escalations were on the company's roadmap.
I'd note with no roadmap at the moment (Unless I missed it) - folks would be less inclined to bring up non bugfix issues, and practically, if things haven't changed, they wouldn't be escalated through these channels.
Working on these things ideally shouldn't be a sprint, it should be more of a distance event so to speak. I do realise that this is above the paygrade of the community team or developers but a lot of our current woes, everywhere are cause people have good ideas, it's done and not followed through.
I am pretty sure from the (few) employees I am and was in contact with that they're doing their best, so I'd argue almost that it is really a matter of sufficient resources to do the thing and prioritisation.
In addition to the benefits the Community Asks Sprint brings to the community, there are also some internal benefits: this is an opportunity for engineers, product managers, and designers to work on issues they may not get to encounter on a regular basis and to touch on areas of the product they wouldn’t normally touch.
I feel like this is a significant weakness - while admittedly it was a smaller organisation, and somewhat more focused, having an intimate understanding of the issues is useful - not an encyclopedic knowledge, but there's probably some dark, musty corners of the codebase ignored for years cause either the person working on it got realigned/retrenched/downsized/retired, or it didn't quite fit.
Likewise, there's a bit of mumblings about rarely seeing staff around any more (though I swear least one of my chatrooms got invaded by devs this week) - familiarity with the platform, and folks being familiar with you is likely to make some processes easier.
In a sense - that they don't encounter these things and certain parts of product on a regular basis seems to be something that makes things harder, not easier.
I'd like to see less of these - not because it's not appreciated, but because there are sufficient resources and will to focus, and not let these things pile up.
All in all, I appreciate the effort now, but I do hope there's more to this than the occasional backlog mitigation.