Mainly voting for number 1 above. You really should enter each point above as a separate idea - makes it much easier for people to find and vote on your suggestions.

Since a lot of instances don't even use companies, another way to achieve this would be at the template level to not only include or exclude the built in fields, but determine if they are mandatory or optional.

So this could be resolved bya) Letting someone belong to more than one Company or;b) Associating Companies with groups (like statuses and approval processes are)

Or how about when you specify fields to add to a card, specify if it's 'always' visible or only when expanded. Achieves the above functionality, but can be more flexible for other use cases. You could even disable the built in fields (like % complete which gets a lot of requests) and replace that ...

It would be great if users had an option to auto-assign tasks for the duration of the project. Ideally, this would be an option after '6 weeks' in the schedule when only one project is showing that would dynamically set the number of weeks to match the project planned start and end dates. However,...

It would also be great if, when you start a story in one iteration and don't complete it, moving it to another iteration still left a history of hours in the original iteration.

In text mode you can add a third grouping.

Why is this still flagged as below threshold? As of Feb 2020 it has 710 points.

Currently, there is only an option to delete a single proof stage when applying a workflow template to a proof. This is particularly annoying when converting an existing document into a proof and using the 'proof details' dialog box within Proof.It would be great to have an option when deleting a '...

It's six months since the last update on this - any more clarity on the timelines and when this can flick to 'planned'?