People ask us all the time: "How do you choose what to work on?"
The short answer: we don't have a formula. The longer answer: we have a framework that helps us argue productively.
Here's how it works:
Every feature request gets evaluated on three dimensions:
Impact — How many people does this affect, and how much?
Alignment — Does it move us closer to the product we want to build long-term?
Feasibility — Can we ship something meaningful in a reasonable timeframe?
None of these alone determines priority. A low-impact feature that's highly aligned and easy to build might ship before a high-impact feature that requires months of foundational work.
Why not just use upvotes?
Upvotes tell you what people think they want, but they don't tell you what they actually need. We've seen features with hundreds of votes get used once and ignored. We've also shipped quiet updates that changed how teams work every day.
Instead, we talk to people. A lot.
[TESTIMONIAL BLOCK]
"The Studio team spent 45 minutes on a call just understanding how we manage drafts. That level of attention is rare."
— Sam Park, Design Lead at Waveline
Our bias:
We lean toward features that:
Reduce friction in existing workflows
Make collaboration less fragile
Give teams control without adding complexity
That doesn't mean we ignore bold ideas—it means we ship them when we can do them right.
[CTA BLOCK]
Have thoughts on what we should build?
[Button: Share your feedback]