4 ms·

> But that sounds like an inconsistently enforced rule which means selectively applied, eventually done so on factors that would be considered unacceptable if w

> But that sounds like an inconsistently enforced rule which means selectively applied, eventually done so on factors that would be considered unacceptable if written down. You're going to have to pick a position on the spectrum between always-enforced rules and purely honor codes (and social pressure). We know the former fails because hard and fast rules can be and are gamed. We know honor codes and social pressure only keep honest people honest. So in practice, where on this spectrum do you stand? If it's your company, or team, or club, or whatever other gathering of humans, you have to make a choice on this question.

SkyBelow 7y ago
It's something I have spent a lot of time thinking about, and while I have yet to reach a conclusion, I believe in a function that approaches always enforced rules as penalty for breaking the rules increases. When the penalty is high, the harm the average player feels from someone gaming the rules is preferable to the harm they feel from having the rules selectively applied to them. I also strongly encourage pointing out the 'real rules' that the written rules are enforced by when they are selectively enforced. Many times they are much harder to tolerate once called out.
- munchbunny 7y ago
  What you're talking about here is creating a robust mechanism for monitoring, investigating, and revising the rule system, which I think we both agree about. My point is that if you are a leader, there is a general approach to make sure your organization has that. Not so much as a peon. To bring it back to your original point, you expressed a clear preference for a letter-of-the-law approach, and for rules that are always applied and always enforced. You place the burden of fairness on the creator of the rule instead of the enforcer. That's an understandable approach. I don't agree now, but I did at one time, so let's run with it. How would you define guidelines/rules for code reviews specifically, or engineering culture in general? Would you? How would you remediate brilliant jerks? How would you measure and incentivize working well with the rest of the team/company?
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    Code cop. Naming standards would very consistent. If it is SSN, Ssn, or SocialSecurityNumber, it will be that way all across all databases of the same system. Rules would differ per system, because there are different best practices per system, which is what I would start with as there is far more expertise into those best practices than what I have. Rules would be equally enforced, but anyone would have the ability to request change. Overall, where possible I rather not have a rule and only create them as needed. Once needed it is created and enforced consistently. >How would you remediate brilliant jerks? How would you measure and incentivize working well with the rest of the team/company? These are areas I'm not proficient in and thus I would first need more study. One thing is that I don't really think there is a choice between two options, but that both options are the same. The only difference from social pressure is that the rule system is much more complex and not written down because people cannot tolerate facing the rule system once written. Imagine a law that says attractive people get less time in prison, would that stand? That women get less prison time? That whites get less prison time? Yet this is what happens when judges are free to given sentences and prosecutors are free to pick what charges to bring. What I advocate is any rule must be written down, and thus any unfairness like the above must be faced and either codified and thus open for challenge or be done away with by removing the subjective application of a rule.

SkyBelow 7y ago

It's something I have spent a lot of time thinking about, and while I have yet to reach a conclusion, I believe in a function that approaches always enforced rules as penalty for breaking the rules increases. When the penalty is high, the harm the average player feels from someone gaming the rules is preferable to the harm they feel from having the rules selectively applied to them. I also strongly encourage pointing out the 'real rules' that the written rules are enforced by when they are selectively enforced. Many times they are much harder to tolerate once called out.

munchbunny 7y ago
What you're talking about here is creating a robust mechanism for monitoring, investigating, and revising the rule system, which I think we both agree about. My point is that if you are a leader, there is a general approach to make sure your organization has that. Not so much as a peon. To bring it back to your original point, you expressed a clear preference for a letter-of-the-law approach, and for rules that are always applied and always enforced. You place the burden of fairness on the creator of the rule instead of the enforcer. That's an understandable approach. I don't agree now, but I did at one time, so let's run with it. How would you define guidelines/rules for code reviews specifically, or engineering culture in general? Would you? How would you remediate brilliant jerks? How would you measure and incentivize working well with the rest of the team/company?
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Code cop. Naming standards would very consistent. If it is SSN, Ssn, or SocialSecurityNumber, it will be that way all across all databases of the same system. Rules would differ per system, because there are different best practices per system, which is what I would start with as there is far more expertise into those best practices than what I have. Rules would be equally enforced, but anyone would have the ability to request change. Overall, where possible I rather not have a rule and only create them as needed. Once needed it is created and enforced consistently. >How would you remediate brilliant jerks? How would you measure and incentivize working well with the rest of the team/company? These are areas I'm not proficient in and thus I would first need more study. One thing is that I don't really think there is a choice between two options, but that both options are the same. The only difference from social pressure is that the rule system is much more complex and not written down because people cannot tolerate facing the rule system once written. Imagine a law that says attractive people get less time in prison, would that stand? That women get less prison time? That whites get less prison time? Yet this is what happens when judges are free to given sentences and prosecutors are free to pick what charges to bring. What I advocate is any rule must be written down, and thus any unfairness like the above must be faced and either codified and thus open for challenge or be done away with by removing the subjective application of a rule.