I've read this discussion before, but I still don't understand the decision: either I forgot, or it was uncomprehensible. I'd like a summary of the reasoning to be added to the description of this task and/or documented, because I suspect some of the reasons may have been superseded by other decisions in the meanwhile.

In its current setup, AFAICS, this instance has *three* manual ways to define priority: addition to a project (meaning a group is in theory working on it), workboard (which often says things like "on hold", "next in our plate" etc.) and points (how expensive is it). This is very confusing and inconsistent with the stated goals of this whole exercise, in particular with the idea of getting rid of the divide between priority field in bugzilla and sprint/roadmap assignments in mingle/trello.

It's not even internally consistent, for instance "Need volunteer" is not a level (can't be sorted by any ordering method together with the others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order ), rather a tag/flag i.e. a project, or a workboard within an existing project, or just an expensive task which has no resources yet. So we already have a "priority" field which cannibalises other areas of maniphest.

Moreover, it's a huge culture shift. For countless years we've stressed how priority has a relative value (very subject to interpretations and context-sensitive) while severity has at least some very clear and relevant boundaries like feature request vs. bug. If the intention is to change this culture, just renaming or removing a field will not work: people will just talk past each other, each fitting the tool to their own view. Besides, I don't see why we'd need or want to go this direction yet: for instance, there's been a lot of talk lately (mostly around https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_%28Product%29/Process_ideas and the countless related threads) about regressions vs. newly introduced bugs vs. feature request, and about *increasing* our ability to distinguish among them and measure them. And now we go in the opposite direction, dropping even "enhancement" vs. [trivial/minor/normal/major/critical] bug? Again, confusing.

I'm not saying decision-makers here didn't know or consider all of this, they probably did: but I'm unable to tell, or to understand the decision. If you can't, or don't, explain the decision addressing all the topics above, then whatever you decided will not be applied in the reality of the issue tracker.