4 ms·

I’m trying to imagine a technical problem where a worker would necessarily need to do something at the outset, and where it would be visible in the way suggests

I’m trying to imagine a technical problem where a worker would necessarily need to do something at the outset, and where it would be visible in the way suggests. Other than really contrived scenarios, I’m coming up blank.

usrusr 8y ago
Unclog the pipes on server x, where assignee y does not have the required credentials yet would be almost literally the crystal key situation. Or, more common and more depressing: talk to contrived API z, where the WIP canary would be pointing out that the documentation is still missing.
topspin 8y ago
Here is a simple one; I task you to add a feature to a system. I know you either haven't been involved with that system previously, or not recently enough that you can access it without contacting so and so to get the necessary credentials or whatever. For instance, you might need to be added to a particular set of group members for certain private GitHub repo to obtain source code; something I point out to you at the outset. Perfectly reasonable situation; nothing contrived about it. Yet I may now contact so and so myself to learn if you've come around to get what I know you need. I have occasionally resorted to 'last' to see if someone has been active on a host I know they should have been accessing for one reason or another; typically to troubleshoot something I've asked them to look at. Often there are 'dev' hosts where the bulk of work occurs. Anyone touched it this week? I've deliberately left database instances down to see if the person that is supposed to be using it either notices and asks why and/or starts it themselves. In an ideal world we suffer no dysfunction; people pursue their commitments. In the real world people make claims that they can't or won't live up to for a whole host of reasons, often times because they've been put in a position for which they lack the ability or haven't been provided the time, tools, authority and/or budget to cope with properly. A wise person detects this early. A naive person gets told stories and played for a sucker. Sometimes just dropping a hint that you're not entirely oblivious to the real state of affairs is enough to get someone off the dime. (I talked to so and so yesterday; she's expecting to hear from you...) Over time people learn that I'm not the one to play. That tends to reduce the net dysfunction, at least in my life.
83457 8y ago
How about.... test this new feature in an app. 2 days later you check and they say no bugs to report so far but still testing some scenarios. Then you realize you forgot to add a necessary file, schema update, etc. That means the person testing could not have possibly been testing as the code would have errored in the first few minutes.
dwd 8y ago
How about developing an interface to an external system using supplied credentials or where you needed to request credentials, and the supplied credentials were incorrect (generally always) or the request process takes a week. Either would have been fine if you had checked at the start and got the ball rolling.

usrusr 8y ago

Unclog the pipes on server x, where assignee y does not have the required credentials yet would be almost literally the crystal key situation. Or, more common and more depressing: talk to contrived API z, where the WIP canary would be pointing out that the documentation is still missing.

topspin 8y ago

Here is a simple one; I task you to add a feature to a system. I know you either haven't been involved with that system previously, or not recently enough that you can access it without contacting so and so to get the necessary credentials or whatever. For instance, you might need to be added to a particular set of group members for certain private GitHub repo to obtain source code; something I point out to you at the outset. Perfectly reasonable situation; nothing contrived about it. Yet I may now contact so and so myself to learn if you've come around to get what I know you need. I have occasionally resorted to 'last' to see if someone has been active on a host I know they should have been accessing for one reason or another; typically to troubleshoot something I've asked them to look at. Often there are 'dev' hosts where the bulk of work occurs. Anyone touched it this week? I've deliberately left database instances down to see if the person that is supposed to be using it either notices and asks why and/or starts it themselves. In an ideal world we suffer no dysfunction; people pursue their commitments. In the real world people make claims that they can't or won't live up to for a whole host of reasons, often times because they've been put in a position for which they lack the ability or haven't been provided the time, tools, authority and/or budget to cope with properly. A wise person detects this early. A naive person gets told stories and played for a sucker. Sometimes just dropping a hint that you're not entirely oblivious to the real state of affairs is enough to get someone off the dime. (I talked to so and so yesterday; she's expecting to hear from you...) Over time people learn that I'm not the one to play. That tends to reduce the net dysfunction, at least in my life.

83457 8y ago

How about.... test this new feature in an app. 2 days later you check and they say no bugs to report so far but still testing some scenarios. Then you realize you forgot to add a necessary file, schema update, etc. That means the person testing could not have possibly been testing as the code would have errored in the first few minutes.

dwd 8y ago

How about developing an interface to an external system using supplied credentials or where you needed to request credentials, and the supplied credentials were incorrect (generally always) or the request process takes a week. Either would have been fine if you had checked at the start and got the ball rolling.