4 ms·

Who cares about how long the backlog is? A queue that grows indefinitely is the type of problem bothers the analytic brain of a programmer. But as the author sa

by rcme 4y ago

Who cares about how long the backlog is? A queue that grows indefinitely is the type of problem bothers the analytic brain of a programmer. But as the author says, the queue does service a purpose: > Backlogs exist because they’re a great way to avoid difficult conversations and shift blame away from product to engineering. > Whenever anyone asks a product manager for a shiny new feature, for example, it’s much easier to say “you’ll add it to the backlog,” than to spend an hour explaining why the suggestion is irrelevant. I think this tone is a little condescending, but the broader point is true: PMs, QAs, and others in the process want to feel like their voices are heard. The backlog gives them a place to express their voice. And of course, not all of the tickets immediately enter the backlog. It's a place to gently lay down bad or low priority ideas without insulting the person who filed the ticket.

dtx1 4y ago
> It's a place to gently lay down bad or low priority ideas without insulting the person who filed the ticket. I mean yes, you can use the Backlog for that, as a sort of idiot pacifier but that's basically the worst way to deal with that. Preferably you would find ways to educate those people on why their Ideas are bad or low priority so they can learn to give you better input.
- rcme 4y ago
  > I mean yes, you can use the Backlog for that, as a sort of idiot pacifier Again, that's really condescending. PMs will have ideas. Some will be good, some will be bad. QAs will file bugs. Some will be good. Some will be bad. The backlog reflects the bad ideas. There's nothing wrong with that. If you feel like your QAs and PMs are idiots, i.e. you're the smartest person in the room, then perhaps you're standing in the wrong room?
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    If you don't give feedback to bad ideas, you're treating them as if they're unable to improve. Maybe "idiot" isn't the exact word, but it's close. The other poster isn't being condescending, they're calling you condescending.
    - dtx1 4y ago
      While I appreciate my posts being defended by other people, my intention was not to call anyone condescending. I merely wanted to suggest that any agile organisation should strive to learn from each other and find better ways to deal with bad/low priority ideas than make people feel warm and fuzzy inside while ignoring their input. Though the use of the wording "idiot pacifier" was perhaps a bit too strong and distracted from the intended meaning.
      - rcme 4y ago
        But who is the arbiter of good ideas? This is kind of a precision / recall problem. Do you want every idea offered to be good, or do you want to get every good idea out of your team, even if that means tolerating some bad ideas? That's not to say we shouldn't strive to have better ideas overall, but the ideation process itself is valuable, even if it's unlikely to produce solely good ideas.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        "Tolerating" and "keeping around forever next to the good ideas" are different things. You can say no without stifling future input.
        rcme 4y ago
        What is the downside of keeping the "bad" ideas around forever other than you find it annoying? My point is that people only care that the backlog grows indefinitely because it disagrees with their sense of order. This is the type of thing an analytic thinker tends to care about, but the size of the backlog queue doesn't really have any meaningful impact on anything. I'm not sure you can say no without stifling future input, or if you can it requires a lot of tact. People don't like rejection. Being rejected makes them less likely to try again in the future.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        The problem isn't keeping them, the problem is mixing them with the good ideas that are low priority. Then you have to mentally re-categorize them every time you go through the list, and if you actually start to shrink the backlog then they come back to cause problems, like making you still have to reject them or someone wasting their time implementing them.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  That's why you need to have backlog grooming sessions regularly. Go through the backlog, prioritise it and see what ideas aren't useful anymore (already implemented, obsolete, stupid etc).

by rcme 4y ago

dtx1 4y ago

> It's a place to gently lay down bad or low priority ideas without insulting the person who filed the ticket. I mean yes, you can use the Backlog for that, as a sort of idiot pacifier but that's basically the worst way to deal with that. Preferably you would find ways to educate those people on why their Ideas are bad or low priority so they can learn to give you better input.

rcme 4y ago
> I mean yes, you can use the Backlog for that, as a sort of idiot pacifier Again, that's really condescending. PMs will have ideas. Some will be good, some will be bad. QAs will file bugs. Some will be good. Some will be bad. The backlog reflects the bad ideas. There's nothing wrong with that. If you feel like your QAs and PMs are idiots, i.e. you're the smartest person in the room, then perhaps you're standing in the wrong room?
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  If you don't give feedback to bad ideas, you're treating them as if they're unable to improve. Maybe "idiot" isn't the exact word, but it's close. The other poster isn't being condescending, they're calling you condescending.
  - dtx1 4y ago
    While I appreciate my posts being defended by other people, my intention was not to call anyone condescending. I merely wanted to suggest that any agile organisation should strive to learn from each other and find better ways to deal with bad/low priority ideas than make people feel warm and fuzzy inside while ignoring their input. Though the use of the wording "idiot pacifier" was perhaps a bit too strong and distracted from the intended meaning.
    - rcme 4y ago
      But who is the arbiter of good ideas? This is kind of a precision / recall problem. Do you want every idea offered to be good, or do you want to get every good idea out of your team, even if that means tolerating some bad ideas? That's not to say we shouldn't strive to have better ideas overall, but the ideation process itself is valuable, even if it's unlikely to produce solely good ideas.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        "Tolerating" and "keeping around forever next to the good ideas" are different things. You can say no without stifling future input.
        rcme 4y ago
        What is the downside of keeping the "bad" ideas around forever other than you find it annoying? My point is that people only care that the backlog grows indefinitely because it disagrees with their sense of order. This is the type of thing an analytic thinker tends to care about, but the size of the backlog queue doesn't really have any meaningful impact on anything. I'm not sure you can say no without stifling future input, or if you can it requires a lot of tact. People don't like rejection. Being rejected makes them less likely to try again in the future.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        The problem isn't keeping them, the problem is mixing them with the good ideas that are low priority. Then you have to mentally re-categorize them every time you go through the list, and if you actually start to shrink the backlog then they come back to cause problems, like making you still have to reject them or someone wasting their time implementing them.
theshrike79 4y ago
That's why you need to have backlog grooming sessions regularly. Go through the backlog, prioritise it and see what ideas aren't useful anymore (already implemented, obsolete, stupid etc).