3 ms·

Sandbagging. Also an opinion. You're being inconsistent and defending your ego rather than being open to the bigger picture. Then you're a technical lead and a

Sandbagging. Also an opinion. You're being inconsistent and defending your ego rather than being open to the bigger picture. Then you're a technical lead and a technical manager; don't conflate the two as the only possible configuration.

gfodor 6y ago
I replied elsewhere a longer form argument, in the form of concrete examples, why I feel being able to ship code confers benefits to engineering managers. I'm not going to argue about titles. Titles are useful for internal political signalling and are basically minimally-transferable cultural norms, but less useful for determining how to best take care of your responsibilities. For the purposes of this discussion I consider an engineering manager's responsibilities will be to maintain the velocity, mental health, and general happiness of their reports. People who argue about the role a person has and what they ought to focus on based upon their designated title, or in this case derive it in the opposite direction, to me, are mistaking the map for the territory. Also, if you think I'm writing this to defend my ego, you ought to become a psychologist since you are able to read minds over the internet.
- airhead969 6y ago
  Then why are you writing? Why are you unable to interact without respect and curiosity but with adversarial hostility? Are you going to escalate to name-calling since you don't have an argument, only rationalizations to reinforce your worldview or the inability to consider approaches outside of your own? Maybe curiosity and self-reflection would help improve the quality of your conversations rather than promoting a religious doctrine through snide defensiveness.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    Interesting that you’ve now accused me of arguing to protect my ego and being snide in the same breath as saying I’m the one being hostile. All I said is that you expressed an opinion, not an argument, which is explicitly true based on your first reply, and explained why if your argument was going to be about why actually there is no trade off why I disagree with it - based on your further responses it feels like you may have taken that personally. It wasn’t personal. If you’re going to accuse me of a lack of curiosity then you need to explain why anything you have written actually does more than repeats the claims in the article I was explicitly rejecting, or why my claim that you leaning on titles to form your argument is just debating over definitions is false.

gfodor 6y ago

I replied elsewhere a longer form argument, in the form of concrete examples, why I feel being able to ship code confers benefits to engineering managers. I'm not going to argue about titles. Titles are useful for internal political signalling and are basically minimally-transferable cultural norms, but less useful for determining how to best take care of your responsibilities. For the purposes of this discussion I consider an engineering manager's responsibilities will be to maintain the velocity, mental health, and general happiness of their reports. People who argue about the role a person has and what they ought to focus on based upon their designated title, or in this case derive it in the opposite direction, to me, are mistaking the map for the territory. Also, if you think I'm writing this to defend my ego, you ought to become a psychologist since you are able to read minds over the internet.

airhead969 6y ago
Then why are you writing? Why are you unable to interact without respect and curiosity but with adversarial hostility? Are you going to escalate to name-calling since you don't have an argument, only rationalizations to reinforce your worldview or the inability to consider approaches outside of your own? Maybe curiosity and self-reflection would help improve the quality of your conversations rather than promoting a religious doctrine through snide defensiveness.
- gfodor 6y ago
  Interesting that you’ve now accused me of arguing to protect my ego and being snide in the same breath as saying I’m the one being hostile. All I said is that you expressed an opinion, not an argument, which is explicitly true based on your first reply, and explained why if your argument was going to be about why actually there is no trade off why I disagree with it - based on your further responses it feels like you may have taken that personally. It wasn’t personal. If you’re going to accuse me of a lack of curiosity then you need to explain why anything you have written actually does more than repeats the claims in the article I was explicitly rejecting, or why my claim that you leaning on titles to form your argument is just debating over definitions is false.