3 ms·

I find this to be a very odd take. I believe no committees is because Jason and DHH don't think they're productive. Not bringing up past decisions you disagre

I find this to be a very odd take. I believe no committees is because Jason and DHH don't think they're productive. Not bringing up past decisions you disagree with makes sense to me. What's the point in re-judging the past? The reason DHH mentioned for 360 reviews was that they didn't contain any real criticism because you're critiquing your co-workers (I'm paraphrasing), and that makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn't want to criticize my co-workers unless I had a very strong relationship with them. None of these changes feel like DHH and Jason being tyrants and stamping out employee insubordination.

solipsism 6y ago
The reason DHH mentioned for 360 reviews was that they didn't contain any real criticism because you're critiquing your co-workers (I'm paraphrasing This part stood out for me. This is a very simplistic view, and I would expect more from company leaders. Of course peer feedback is colored. But that doesn't mean it's without signal. A statement like "Sandra is great, her work is consistently on time" can be ignored. It's essentially no data. But a statement like "I couldn't have completed feature X without Susan. She did X, Y, and Z, and these things weren't even part of her job. Everyone needs to be more like Susan." Well... that statement tells you something. And you now have a basis of comparison between Susan's work and Sandras. Give Susan a bonus and Sandra a thumbs up.