The simplest solution to the 'chronological pile-up problem' (nice name BTW) is a Wiki model, where replies are appended by default but the entire content can be edited if necessary. (C2 demonstrates this quite well.) For simple problems, conversations behave exactly the way they used to, but when it starts getting complex someone can go in and rearrange the conversation into a more logical form. This actually maps quite well to email: by default replies are appended to the bottom, but they can also be inserted inline (some mailing list etiquettes even demand this) or indeed the entire conversation can be rewritten. You'd probably want some sort of merge algorithm in case someone replies to an older email.

In fact, my usual approach to dealing with tickets/issues/emails which start to develop this problem is to make my own private copy of the thread and edit it in precisely this manner, though I'm the only one this benefits since it doesn't get sent back upstream.

I also have an idiosyncratic way of organizing this stuff, which is basically to use Emacs + mu4e to search my mail, and if I need to create order, write a new document from scratch. I have a coworker who does what you do, now that you mention it—he will take a series of email, dump it into Word and edit it until it is a useful document of some sort.

I still think there is something here though. Stack Overflow replaced message boards, which were basically HTML versions of mailing lists, and part of that was identifying the semantics of question, answer and comment and defining new operators and new expectations for them.

A wiki is a good approach but because it's totally free-form, the user gets stuck doing the work of keeping things hygienic.

JIRA allows you to edit all the properties of a ticket whenever, but it generates such a huge cloud of email notifications in the process, it kind of disincentivises you from using it. And nobody is in the habit of rereading the page to see what is different since last time.

> Your comments make me think the crux of the problem is that people want tickets to be like email and use email to manage them. I'm not sure you can ever overcome the "chronological pile-up" problem if you allow email as a user interface to ticketing.

I agree that's partly it, but that seems ok when you're in the thick of discussing a problem/fix. If you're doing a code review or something after a fix has been pushed, you actually want certain messages to stand out to describe resolutions and whatnot.

So like gmail where you can star/mark certain replies as important and those messages would show up at top-level in the ticket, where all other messages are collapsed.