3 ms·

Sounds like a retro topic. Real life isn't Dilbert, but I can see how we fall into its tropes. Ultimately, you're a professional, and shipping crap code is un

Sounds like a retro topic. Real life isn't Dilbert, but I can see how we fall into its tropes. Ultimately, you're a professional, and shipping crap code is unprofessional. But when you inherited 90% legacy code, it's not like your team can instantly go to shipping non-crap. So, there has to be a gradual improvement in the team as you get the codebase under control. This is why retrospectives are my favorite Scrum meeting because I get to air my grievances in a constructive, supportive way where I secure action items for the next sprint for what I want done and backlog items for the future. If I am being told by my Product Owner I can't address tech debt, then I absolutely hammer home details in the retro when that tech debt bites us. And every single sprint, I will say the same things over and over, each time ratcheting up the severity, polite but firm. I get to say things like, "this is hurting our velocity, we are firefighting constantly, build times are ridiculous, we need to be logging more", etc. Ultimately, even sociopaths get tired of hearing the repetition. So they give you a story to go fix some tech debt. Let me tell you from experience, you had better KNOCK that first tech debt story out of the park. And, it had better be a story you can measure for awesomeness. "Weekly Saturday morning outage abated for first time in months", that kind of thing. You need to proclaim your team's success in improving things to whoever will listen in the organization to make the wins public. This is how you gain trust and get the next tech debt story to work on, positive reinforcement. Your story makes me sad though. It could mean that your PO didn't trust your team because maybe your system was fragile and every time you guys tried to fix things, it turned into a boondoggle. Not trying to insult you, I don't know your story, maybe your PO was a tyrant. I'm just relating learnings from my own past experiences that might apply to you. Like, if any developer on your team ever says in a team meeting "we don't know what's going wrong", the trust level goes down a peg and some PO's will immediately start to panic or die inside. You can't blame a PO for acting irrational or cold to the team after that happens. All I know is, every story you do in those low trust situations with regards to tech debt needs to be a win, it should be bite-sized with high confidence levels before you agree to take on the story. No big bang releasing anything. Always gain more confidence.

OutOfHere 2y ago
Retrospectives allow airing concerns, but nothing really ever happens of those concerns in my experience. The concerns are documented but forgotten before the meeting is over. It's as if it's a religious ceremony. It seems that you have to take desperate measures and be very convincing, which shouldn't be necessary in a high trust setting. One shouldn't have to repeat the same things over and over. It's the PO's job to take notes, and if they don't want to act on it, it's their project that will burn. No skin off my back. The best thing I can do is to have it documented once in writing an email, with a Bcc to my own personal address for legal reasons. I shouldn't have to work extra hard to convince someone of what's necessary. I certainly don't get paid enough to do it. It is disrespectful to me, and similarly to you, if the other person is difficult to convince. If the management wants to torpedo the company, it's what is deserved.
- dwoldrich 2y ago
  > Retrospectives allow airing concerns, but nothing really ever happens of those concerns in my experience. Even on the urgent stuff? If the pain is excruciating, coming out of retro, stories get added to stop the bleeding in the following sprint on every Scrum team I've ever been on. Are there never any action items with owners or stories written coming out of retro on your teams? You should try that. > I certainly don't get paid enough to do it. It is disrespectful to me, and similarly to you, if the other person is difficult to convince. Not if your ideas are bad/misguided/counter-productive. Do you know your ideas are good? How do you know? One can't tell if they are misinformed, hallucinating or off the rails. If you can't tell, then your PO and team certainly can't tell, especially on complex problems. So some arguments take time to develop, you sharpen your argument with new data, or maybe the thing you were all worked up was your mind playing tricks. It happens all the time. I think it's very easy to get defensive and angry when it feels like you're losing face in front of your team. Getting pushback is normal, especially when trust is low or resources are sparing. Just keep a cool head and wear down the resistance. It's not losing face if you are always acting in good faith when discussing issues you want to see addressed on the project. You're actually stronger in the team's eyes if show commitment to the team even after embarrassments. You're not a robot and you'll make lots of mistakes.

OutOfHere 2y ago

Retrospectives allow airing concerns, but nothing really ever happens of those concerns in my experience. The concerns are documented but forgotten before the meeting is over. It's as if it's a religious ceremony. It seems that you have to take desperate measures and be very convincing, which shouldn't be necessary in a high trust setting. One shouldn't have to repeat the same things over and over. It's the PO's job to take notes, and if they don't want to act on it, it's their project that will burn. No skin off my back. The best thing I can do is to have it documented once in writing an email, with a Bcc to my own personal address for legal reasons. I shouldn't have to work extra hard to convince someone of what's necessary. I certainly don't get paid enough to do it. It is disrespectful to me, and similarly to you, if the other person is difficult to convince. If the management wants to torpedo the company, it's what is deserved.

dwoldrich 2y ago
> Retrospectives allow airing concerns, but nothing really ever happens of those concerns in my experience. Even on the urgent stuff? If the pain is excruciating, coming out of retro, stories get added to stop the bleeding in the following sprint on every Scrum team I've ever been on. Are there never any action items with owners or stories written coming out of retro on your teams? You should try that. > I certainly don't get paid enough to do it. It is disrespectful to me, and similarly to you, if the other person is difficult to convince. Not if your ideas are bad/misguided/counter-productive. Do you know your ideas are good? How do you know? One can't tell if they are misinformed, hallucinating or off the rails. If you can't tell, then your PO and team certainly can't tell, especially on complex problems. So some arguments take time to develop, you sharpen your argument with new data, or maybe the thing you were all worked up was your mind playing tricks. It happens all the time. I think it's very easy to get defensive and angry when it feels like you're losing face in front of your team. Getting pushback is normal, especially when trust is low or resources are sparing. Just keep a cool head and wear down the resistance. It's not losing face if you are always acting in good faith when discussing issues you want to see addressed on the project. You're actually stronger in the team's eyes if show commitment to the team even after embarrassments. You're not a robot and you'll make lots of mistakes.