4 ms·

It works, the following words made me rich: - Great idea - Makes total sense - That's how I would do it - I agree And this is not a joke.

gardenhedge 4y ago
Well a team has to come together around a shared goal. If a team is made up of people who disagree with what the team is trying to do... it's not a team
- jasonjmcghee 4y ago
  I think people often share common goals, but “how” is where disagreement tends to be. And I think that’s healthy. Some friction in decision making will often yield better decisions.
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > Some friction in decision making will often yield better decisions. I agree. The problem starts when this sort of friction continues after all the decision-making is done and starts manifesting as contrarian positions towards how the project is being conducted, always insisting that their idea was better, and even assuming aspects of sabotage. It's one thing to determine a path forward, but an entirely different thing to assume a "my way or no way" stance.
icedchai 4y ago
Even if I don't agree 100%, I'll find myself saying these things. Especially in today's world of pointless Zoom meetings, endless "check-ins", it's often not worth arguing. Rarely is anything mission critical. (If it's a "big deal", I will disagree.)
ransom1538 4y ago
them: "We should switch to rebase! I read this blog!" me: "ok." (even though this will cost hundreds of productivity hours - explaining it to new devs and wondering why all your history disappeared again, sigh you shouldn't rebase on a public branch! , gah fuck it)
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Is this a hill I’m willing to die on?… again?… Yeah, sure, sounds like a great idea.
- simplotek 4y ago
  I worked on projects where rebase was the norm, even for public feature branches. Not a problem. Rebase is a tradeoff of handling merge conflicts with achieving a commit history that is far cleaner and audit-friendly. The point being that some technical choices are not black and white, and people mistake baseless personal opinions with technical truths. There's an awful lot of workable grey areas with tradeoffs. If a team member insists on pushing his personal opinions as the truth, challenges and opposes each and every proposal that does not match his personal opinion, and drags on personal vendettas in decisions that didn't went their way... I'd say that no matter where their tech skills are, that person is still incompetent and a liability in any team.

gardenhedge 4y ago

Well a team has to come together around a shared goal. If a team is made up of people who disagree with what the team is trying to do... it's not a team

jasonjmcghee 4y ago
I think people often share common goals, but “how” is where disagreement tends to be. And I think that’s healthy. Some friction in decision making will often yield better decisions.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > Some friction in decision making will often yield better decisions. I agree. The problem starts when this sort of friction continues after all the decision-making is done and starts manifesting as contrarian positions towards how the project is being conducted, always insisting that their idea was better, and even assuming aspects of sabotage. It's one thing to determine a path forward, but an entirely different thing to assume a "my way or no way" stance.

icedchai 4y ago

Even if I don't agree 100%, I'll find myself saying these things. Especially in today's world of pointless Zoom meetings, endless "check-ins", it's often not worth arguing. Rarely is anything mission critical. (If it's a "big deal", I will disagree.)

ransom1538 4y ago

them: "We should switch to rebase! I read this blog!" me: "ok." (even though this will cost hundreds of productivity hours - explaining it to new devs and wondering why all your history disappeared again, sigh you shouldn't rebase on a public branch! , gah fuck it)

Aeolun 4y ago
Is this a hill I’m willing to die on?… again?… Yeah, sure, sounds like a great idea.
simplotek 4y ago
I worked on projects where rebase was the norm, even for public feature branches. Not a problem. Rebase is a tradeoff of handling merge conflicts with achieving a commit history that is far cleaner and audit-friendly. The point being that some technical choices are not black and white, and people mistake baseless personal opinions with technical truths. There's an awful lot of workable grey areas with tradeoffs. If a team member insists on pushing his personal opinions as the truth, challenges and opposes each and every proposal that does not match his personal opinion, and drags on personal vendettas in decisions that didn't went their way... I'd say that no matter where their tech skills are, that person is still incompetent and a liability in any team.