@ChrisHemphill1 - I previously expressed concerns about ensuring the stability of the Atlassian Cloud ecosystem as we (Atlassian + partners/vendors) continue to support customers in highly regulated industries such as pharma, medtech, etc. My concerns were partially alleviated when Atlassian (slightly) softened the Forge migration timeline, but now this change announcement is far worse than anything I ever would have imagined. 
The proposed Tier 1 âGlobal Poolâ model raises an extreme concern for customers using Jira/Confluence in environments regulated by the US FDA, EU EMA, etc. If a single tenant of an app can exhaust a shared hourly quota and cause degraded or unavailable functionality for all other tenants (potentially for up to 60 minutes!!!), that introduces a form of cross-tenant coupling that those customers simply cannot accept.
In practical terms, this means:
-
Unpredictable outages in compliance-related activities: Customers might not be able to run tests, complete risk assessments, apply electronic signatures, or generate reports because another company consumed the hourly quota?!? Those are all common use cases that regulated customers rely on Marketplace apps for.
-
Unreliable controls in validated workflows: Nearly every regulated customer uses third-party extensions to configure Conditions and Validators in their Jira workflows. These extensions are used to enforce regulatory rules. What will happen if a customer initiates a bulk transition after the appâs hourly quota is consumed? Will the regulatory rules not be enforced?
-
No good mitigations: When any of the above scenarios happen, the customer will be required to initiate a Corrective Action / Preventive Action (CAPA) investigation. What is the corrective action here? What is the preventive action? What can customers do except to abandon the platform? (Which none of us want.) Customers have no recourse to make their environment stable.
For many companies, the risk alone may be enough to disqualify Atlassian Cloud as a viable platform and move somewhere else.
To be clear, I donât believe this is coming from a lack of care or intent on Atlassianâs part. I understand the need to protect shared infrastructure and to evolve rate limiting in a way that reflects real system cost. But the Global Pool approach, as described, appears fundamentally incompatible with the expectations of regulated customers.
Given all the concerns raised so far related to cybersecurity, regulatory compliance, technical feasibility, and general fairness to customers, I strongly encourage Atlassian to abandon the Global Pool strategy. API quotas are necessary, but they canât be global.
Thank you for listening, and I sincerely hope this thread becomes a dialogue with Atlassian, instead of just a long rant from us.