Ticket smash for [status-review] tag

I noticed that a lot of prior requests are being tagged status-declined on the grounds that they're not part of the current Q1 roadmap.

Once the roadmap's timeline is over, will such requests be automatically considered for future timelines, or will new reconsideration requests have to be filed for those requests in order for them to be considered?

If so, will "the mentioned roadmap has passed" or "can this please be added to a future roadmap" be valid rationales for having the requests reconsidered?

(For clarity: at least a couple of the requests that were marked declined with this rationale were things I wanted to see implemented. I was planning to post reconsideration requests for those once the timeline was over, but wanted to ask first if that was necessary.)

I'm rather concerned about this use of the status-declined tag, as it implies a finality that I do not believe was intended but which will definitely be read. From the tag wiki (emphasis mine):

A feature request or bug report is considered declined if the report is reviewed and the site developers disagree that the feature should be implemented or the bug should be fixed.

...

In the case of feature requests, this usually comes up if the request is counter to site philosophy, if the request is attempting to change behavior that is intentional or even encouraged by the system, or if the request creates greater complexity or problems in the system than it successfully solves.

Rather than outright rejecting the feature request, it seems to me that your intent here was to use this as a "status-declined-but-only-for-now", to indicate that yes, it was reviewed, but no, it's not on the table; a role probably better suited for status-deferred:

A feature request or bug with this tag is something that has been evaluated as positive on potential, but is not present in the current work timeline.

Insofar as you want to keep status-deferred for things that only have an actual chance to be moved on in the foreseeable future, I think the best alternative would be to simply remove the status-review tag from the "declined-for-now" requests entirely. This, at least, communicates that the feature request hasn't been outright rejected, and may still be considered if escalated for review in the future at a better time, but simply isn't on the table right now.

Alternatively, perhaps you can create a new tag (status-somedaymaybe?) to cover this use case, which would mark a reviewed request as being viable (or at least still worth considering) while also refusing to move on it at this moment.

On the one hand, I very much appreciate seeing staff interact with our per-site metas once more, and actually giving us some closure on feature requests—even if it is to decline them. I see this as staff putting in work to get the community/staff trust and interaction back to where it should be and used to be.

On the other hand though, on the two sites I'm most active on, the feature requests that were declined were among those sites' biggest pain points and ones we'd been waiting to see resolved for years. They weren't just status-deferred as in they have “merit to consider, but will not be implemented or fixed in the near term”, they were status-declined, as in this simply indefinitely will not happen (GoldPseudo raises this concern here).

• On Role-Playing Games, four features got declined. Two features were just requests for comment shortlinks, that's fine, we can do without. However, another two were a request to let us classify certain tags as game tags and put them first in the list, effectively handling them like the discussion/support/bug/feature-request tags on meta (without the added bit of making them mandatory). This addresses our single biggest communication issue on RPG.SE, which is ensuring our game systems get clearly communicated to users.
• On Board Games Stack Exchange, a custom piece of markdown that gets used heavily is broken and has been for years. We've outlined an exact change that can be done to fix it, and there's an alternative. The request to fix it has been declined. Not “we'll fix it later”, just “we won't fix it ever, you're stuck”.

The staff responses gave no explanation other than that they're not a current priority. These are more serious issues that warrant a fuller explanation if they're simply never going to happen. It feels like there's still some kind of breakdown here, and personally it feels like it's the following: (1) staff do not know our community's priorities and pain points in order to understand when a more full consideration and explanation might be needed, (2) staff aren't given the resources to take the time to engage with us, learn those things, and make more thorough evaluations and deliver more thorough explanations, and/or (3) our communities and their pain points just don't really matter and we don't know why.

March 24th update: One of the above-mentioned issues, the one on Board Games Stack Exchange, has been given another look and is now status-completed. The community will be very appreciative of this fix.

This sounds good, so we now have some feedback which things may get addressed at some point, and which likely won't.

However, I noticed that there are currently more than 180 status-deferred questions, many of them quite old. Do you also plan to do a ticket smash for those? ;)

This might prove useful....

A bug report I posted just received an answer by @JonChan♦ in the ongoing ticket smash, marking the bug status-deferred for the time being.

As I posted other open bug reports that may receive answers by staff, I want to ask if it's better that we mark the answers as accepted for now?