This is perhaps implicit in your comment, but "no" is also an acceptable answer if you explain why. We have a product that we have a relatively clear idea about, where we spend a lot of time making sure we're keeping things simple and focused. I reckon we say "no" to at least one third of ideas and "not for quite a while" for at least another third, explaining why each time in terms of our roadmap for the product. We'd found that customers tend to respond quite well, and for those where it's a deal breaker, they're probably better served by a different product anyway.
> ...they're probably better served by a different product anyway.
And you are doing both them and yourself a favor by making this clear. You might lose a couple of customers. But you would have lost them anyway and unhappy customers can also be annoying for everybody and slow you down, give you less than favorable reviews, etc.
The problem is that not saying no, dismissing it without details, or ignoring it in an icebox removes a key feature and the way we should organize that idea: why not.
Suppose the idea is likely impactful but complicated to implement. In that case, you might want to think about putting those ideas together to argue for refactoring that would enable more impactful ideas.
If the idea would change the kind of service being offered, then it should inform strategic product thinking.
If the idea is relevant but unlikely to have an impact because it's too low level and about code quality, maybe you want to think of automating or including it in the linting process.
I think the problem here is that the tool, Jira tickets, isn’t suited for the use that you make of it: communicating with clients and defining product strategy. The problem is that there isn’t a good tool for that.
