3 ms·

> Lead developers and managers can't keep track of all the minutae that people have worked on in their careers. Keeping track of people's skills and expertise

by alxlaz 7y ago

> Lead developers and managers can't keep track of all the minutae that people have worked on in their careers. Keeping track of people's skills and expertise is part of their job description. If they don't, how are they going to help them develop and steer their careers? Not knowing every single thing they've worked on is one thing, but knowing (as in your example) who is likely to have used that piece of software, or who has experience troubleshooting performance problems involving that piece of software's functionality, is definitely their responsibility. > For a concrete example: if I track a performance problem down to a small part of an open-source piece of software, it isn't realistic for managers/lead developers to know if anyone on the team has experience with that piece of the software. Certainly -- but that doesn't justify having a stand-up meeting every day. It's not realistic for managers/lead devs to know if anyone on the team experience with a particular piece of software, but it is realistic for them -- or for any developer, for that matter -- to be able to find that out without dragging everyone from their desks for half an hour or more.

solidasparagus 7y ago
It's a matter of effort for reward. I get the sense from you that you find standups to be miserable so any way to get rid of them is worthwhile, even if it's less efficient (and having managers/lead developers track who is working on what specific piece of software and organize conversations to make sure the right people are talking to each other is not efficient). In my experience, standup has almost no cost and is generally enjoyable - people typically like talking about what they are doing and getting thoughts/advice. But if your standups are "half an hour or more", they clearly don't have much in common with the standups I've done. I would propose that maybe the problem is your standups are poorly run, not that the concept itself is bad.
- alxlaz 7y ago
  I find stand-ups pretty fun, too, but that's all -- and it's definitely not an experience that everyone finds enjoyable. We all like to talk about what we're doing. Some of us, myself included, gladly jump at every chance to do it, including stand-ups. Others, though, see the whole standup thing in terms that are closer to herding people into a meeting room and prodding them until they start talking. As for timing: if you have a 10- or 15-people team, allowing for even just two minutes per person -- which is barely enough to cover a non-trivial problem -- easily gets you to 20-30 minutes. It gets shorter if all updates are in the form of "no news is good news", but then the meeting could have just as easily been an email. It also gets shorter if the problems really are so trivial that fifteen people can describe all of them, and their solutions, in a couple of sentences, so that no one talks for more than 30 seconds -- but then are these problems really so big that you need to hold a meeting that everyone attends, every single day? I don't think the concept itself is bad -- just that the arguments for efficiency aren't convincing when it comes to large teams. I doubt that you can really disseminate useful information in this format, and even if you could, there are way more efficient ways to do that. Edit: If these meetings are held just to make sure all updates are given regularly, often, and in the open, with all the consequences this has (good ones, like everyone being on the same page, and bad ones, like opportunistic managers taking the chance to use this as a way to pressure their team), that's great, but let's be frank and admit it.
thrower123 7y ago
With the amount of churn that there is in a lot of companies, it's unreasonable to expect anyone to do much of anything except bail water and try to keep things going within a handful of compass points of the correct direction. My company is blessedly stable, but for instance at my wife's employer, there are teams that have had 300% turnover in the two years she has been there. I think this kind of endless short-term firefighting is part and parcel with the micromanagement that daily standups embody. When nobody actually has any experience, or built any trust over time, the whip lays on heavier to keep people in line and pulling in the same direction.
rmah 7y ago
If your "standup" is half an hour or more, it's not a standup, it's a status meeting that your org just happens to call a "standup". A real scottish standup is a few minutes -- 5 or 10 minutes. 15 max if there are lots of people and lots of things to cover.
- alxlaz 7y ago
  This was all in the context of large teams, larger than the Agile methodology recommends. How much useful stuff do you think a developer can fit in 20 seconds of speech -- which is about all they get if you want to fit a 15-people meeting in a ten-minute timeslot? Once a team grows past a certain size, either you keep the discourse substantial -- and end up with 30-minute meetings -- or you cut everyone short, and end up with ten minutes of smiling and saying the right buzzwords.
  - kthejoker2 7y ago
    > How much useful stuff do you think a developer can fit in 20 seconds of speech 1. What did you do yesterday? 2. What are you doing today? 3. Any blockers?

by alxlaz 7y ago

solidasparagus 7y ago

It's a matter of effort for reward. I get the sense from you that you find standups to be miserable so any way to get rid of them is worthwhile, even if it's less efficient (and having managers/lead developers track who is working on what specific piece of software and organize conversations to make sure the right people are talking to each other is not efficient). In my experience, standup has almost no cost and is generally enjoyable - people typically like talking about what they are doing and getting thoughts/advice. But if your standups are "half an hour or more", they clearly don't have much in common with the standups I've done. I would propose that maybe the problem is your standups are poorly run, not that the concept itself is bad.

alxlaz 7y ago
I find stand-ups pretty fun, too, but that's all -- and it's definitely not an experience that everyone finds enjoyable. We all like to talk about what we're doing. Some of us, myself included, gladly jump at every chance to do it, including stand-ups. Others, though, see the whole standup thing in terms that are closer to herding people into a meeting room and prodding them until they start talking. As for timing: if you have a 10- or 15-people team, allowing for even just two minutes per person -- which is barely enough to cover a non-trivial problem -- easily gets you to 20-30 minutes. It gets shorter if all updates are in the form of "no news is good news", but then the meeting could have just as easily been an email. It also gets shorter if the problems really are so trivial that fifteen people can describe all of them, and their solutions, in a couple of sentences, so that no one talks for more than 30 seconds -- but then are these problems really so big that you need to hold a meeting that everyone attends, every single day? I don't think the concept itself is bad -- just that the arguments for efficiency aren't convincing when it comes to large teams. I doubt that you can really disseminate useful information in this format, and even if you could, there are way more efficient ways to do that. Edit: If these meetings are held just to make sure all updates are given regularly, often, and in the open, with all the consequences this has (good ones, like everyone being on the same page, and bad ones, like opportunistic managers taking the chance to use this as a way to pressure their team), that's great, but let's be frank and admit it.

thrower123 7y ago

With the amount of churn that there is in a lot of companies, it's unreasonable to expect anyone to do much of anything except bail water and try to keep things going within a handful of compass points of the correct direction. My company is blessedly stable, but for instance at my wife's employer, there are teams that have had 300% turnover in the two years she has been there. I think this kind of endless short-term firefighting is part and parcel with the micromanagement that daily standups embody. When nobody actually has any experience, or built any trust over time, the whip lays on heavier to keep people in line and pulling in the same direction.

rmah 7y ago

If your "standup" is half an hour or more, it's not a standup, it's a status meeting that your org just happens to call a "standup". A real scottish standup is a few minutes -- 5 or 10 minutes. 15 max if there are lots of people and lots of things to cover.

alxlaz 7y ago
This was all in the context of large teams, larger than the Agile methodology recommends. How much useful stuff do you think a developer can fit in 20 seconds of speech -- which is about all they get if you want to fit a 15-people meeting in a ten-minute timeslot? Once a team grows past a certain size, either you keep the discourse substantial -- and end up with 30-minute meetings -- or you cut everyone short, and end up with ten minutes of smiling and saying the right buzzwords.
- kthejoker2 7y ago
  > How much useful stuff do you think a developer can fit in 20 seconds of speech 1. What did you do yesterday? 2. What are you doing today? 3. Any blockers?