4 ms·
For me the person taking the mediator role doesn't need to have "enough practical experience". The role of mediator could be someone not invested in on side of
by mnsc 10y ago
For me the person taking the mediator role doesn't need to have "enough practical experience". The role of mediator could be someone not invested in on side of the deadlock that takes it upon them to lay out the pros and cons so that the people assuming the architect role discuss from the same premises. A mediator could also identify if there are outside demands that are uncertain that causes the deadlock. Then someone in the role as concierge could reach out and clear the uncertainty which would allow the team to unite on a sane technical choice going forward (in small increments).
- zaphar 10y agoThe risk you take on when the mediator role doesn't have practical experience is that no consensus will be reached. Or worse if that mediator is empowered to break a deadlock he'll do so badly because he doesn't have enough context to make a good decision and not enough time to come up to speed in order to make a good decision.
- mnsc 10y agoMy point is that the mediator shouldn't make the decision that is not in the role. If the deadlock is concerning i.e. two competing architectural decisions the mediator should help the different people with architect roles engaged in the debate to decide how to move forward. Trusting that a single Tech Lead always will have the right context to authoritatively decide the best way forward seems naive to me. Where is this magical person?
- zaphar 10y agoThe same place you find two people who can by consensus arrive at the best decision moving forward. The point of breaking a deadlock isn't that you choose the best choice but that you are able to make a choice which is strictly better than making no choice.
- gohrt 10y agoTrusting that a pair of engineers will always come to an agreement to authoritatively decide the best way forward seems naive to me. Where are these magical people?