5 ms·

> but they idea that there is a single "thing" called process and some places have it and some don't is just dangerously misleading. Is that what I said? No.

> but they idea that there is a single "thing" called process and some places have it and some don't is just dangerously misleading. Is that what I said? No. I got into computers because I dislike people: leave me alone and let me work.

tartoran 6y ago
I personally don't dislike people but prefer small teams where we almost get to read each other's mind. There's no magic formula for that, it's just compatibility and it usually forms organically. But I also like to get some 'let me think alone' time without which my performance starts slipping..
flyinglizard 6y ago
Work on what, though? Work how? What gets prioritized? How are things released? How are issues handled? Without process, more employees just increase entropy. The process brings everything together. What’s described in the OP is a process. I run a very similar process myself - contractors, minimal friction, weak deadlines, no stand ups and all. Supremely effective.
- castlecrasher2 6y ago
  Exactly. Good process is there to protect you, bad process slows you down. For example, in companies that deal with medical data/PHI/PII, having to go through processes is necessary because of liability, no way of getting around it.
bumby 6y ago
Surely, you have a process that you follow in your own work though? There are formal codified processes and there are informal tribal ones. Often when I hear people have disdain for processes, it’s usually they don’t like someone else’s process. Unfortunately, standardized processes tend to become more necessary as systems get more complicated in order to ensure an operation becomes fault tolerant by not being reliant on a person that may leave but instead reliant on a process that stays. Processes mitigate risk. Just because that risk isn’t important to you doesn’t mean that risk isn’t important to someone. With that said, there are smart, efficient ways to mitigate risk and there are inefficient, burdensome ways
- Retric 6y ago
  > Surely, you have a process that you follow in your own work though? Personally, no. I have spent enough time at enough organizations to simply adapt to whatever they do. But if I want to write some code I just do that. I might toss in testing or whatever for bigger projects, but it’s all ad hock. Processes are about repeatability, but for personal projects you can customize based on more specific goals. If I want speed, accuracy, or whatever I am going do made different choices. I am even going to change things up based on whatever mood I am in at the time.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - bdamm 6y ago
    The moment your personal project becomes an open source project with you as the maintainer, there will be process. Manually making releases without any process gets real tiring, real fast.
- mikewarot 6y ago
  >Processes mitigate risk. Processes mitigate risk of repeating a mistake, but they don't prevent new ones, unless you have very wise people building them, and keeping them current. Processes can be thought of as an institutional form of OCD. There are costs, and they shouldn't outweigh the benefits.
  - bumby 6y ago
    >Processes mitigate risk of repeating a mistake, but they don't prevent new ones I’m not sure I fully agree. Reactive processes prevent recurring mistakes, because they layer on a requirement to close a gap. I think people can go overboard, particularly when they are myopically focused on a single risk in their wheelhouse and miss the big picture. Better processes can be more proactive. For example, a process requiring a failure-modes-effect-analysis can identify potential faults that have never been experienced. Developers may feel like they don’t need to work on an FMEA because they “know what they’re doing” and miss latent failure modes
cortesoft 6y ago
Ok, then go off and work alone on your own projects. No one is going to bug you if you are working alone. If you want someone to pay you, though, you are going to have to let those people have a say in what you do.

tartoran 6y ago

I personally don't dislike people but prefer small teams where we almost get to read each other's mind. There's no magic formula for that, it's just compatibility and it usually forms organically. But I also like to get some 'let me think alone' time without which my performance starts slipping..

flyinglizard 6y ago

Work on what, though? Work how? What gets prioritized? How are things released? How are issues handled? Without process, more employees just increase entropy. The process brings everything together. What’s described in the OP is a process. I run a very similar process myself - contractors, minimal friction, weak deadlines, no stand ups and all. Supremely effective.

castlecrasher2 6y ago
Exactly. Good process is there to protect you, bad process slows you down. For example, in companies that deal with medical data/PHI/PII, having to go through processes is necessary because of liability, no way of getting around it.

bumby 6y ago

Surely, you have a process that you follow in your own work though? There are formal codified processes and there are informal tribal ones. Often when I hear people have disdain for processes, it’s usually they don’t like someone else’s process. Unfortunately, standardized processes tend to become more necessary as systems get more complicated in order to ensure an operation becomes fault tolerant by not being reliant on a person that may leave but instead reliant on a process that stays. Processes mitigate risk. Just because that risk isn’t important to you doesn’t mean that risk isn’t important to someone. With that said, there are smart, efficient ways to mitigate risk and there are inefficient, burdensome ways

Retric 6y ago
> Surely, you have a process that you follow in your own work though? Personally, no. I have spent enough time at enough organizations to simply adapt to whatever they do. But if I want to write some code I just do that. I might toss in testing or whatever for bigger projects, but it’s all ad hock. Processes are about repeatability, but for personal projects you can customize based on more specific goals. If I want speed, accuracy, or whatever I am going do made different choices. I am even going to change things up based on whatever mood I am in at the time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bdamm 6y ago
  The moment your personal project becomes an open source project with you as the maintainer, there will be process. Manually making releases without any process gets real tiring, real fast.
mikewarot 6y ago
>Processes mitigate risk. Processes mitigate risk of repeating a mistake, but they don't prevent new ones, unless you have very wise people building them, and keeping them current. Processes can be thought of as an institutional form of OCD. There are costs, and they shouldn't outweigh the benefits.
- bumby 6y ago
  >Processes mitigate risk of repeating a mistake, but they don't prevent new ones I’m not sure I fully agree. Reactive processes prevent recurring mistakes, because they layer on a requirement to close a gap. I think people can go overboard, particularly when they are myopically focused on a single risk in their wheelhouse and miss the big picture. Better processes can be more proactive. For example, a process requiring a failure-modes-effect-analysis can identify potential faults that have never been experienced. Developers may feel like they don’t need to work on an FMEA because they “know what they’re doing” and miss latent failure modes

cortesoft 6y ago

Ok, then go off and work alone on your own projects. No one is going to bug you if you are working alone. If you want someone to pay you, though, you are going to have to let those people have a say in what you do.