I think these are excellent metrics for the engineering team to discuss at retro in aggregate. But not so good for comparing Joe and Mo. Or even saying “how is

I think these are excellent metrics for the engineering team to discuss at retro in aggregate. But not so good for comparing Joe and Mo. Or even saying “how is Joe doing”. Unless the reviewer is very skilled in navigating that data without bias. Most people I have worked for wont be and will ruin the employee relationship by making some comment about how “this could improve” when the employee things “ok this is BS but better go along with it, and maybe i’ll open CV.docx tonight and give it a spring clean”. Bullshit is the biggest turn off for me in jobs and I will leave a job with too much (some is to be expected and a side effect of getting groups to work together). Team leaders tracking my time and commits closely to judge performance is this. How should they judge? Best way is get people to pair often. You will know what they are actually doing that way or can talk to someone who did. Any real laggers will be found naturally, and then find out why and fix (might be onboarding sux for example). People do hate paring I know but it doesn’t have to be all the time. Even an hour a day of someone jumping on to help will spread boats loads of useful information.