3 ms·

But why should anyone your team and the Product Owner form a consensus around your ideas? Maybe all of your ideas and your approach to work stinks. Specifical

But why should anyone your team and the Product Owner form a consensus around your ideas? Maybe all of your ideas and your approach to work stinks. Specifically: how do you know your ideas are correct and not hallucinations or misinformed when you get grumpy that no one listens to or respects you?

shrimp_emoji 2y ago
[dead]
OutOfHere 2y ago
I am really not saying they should, but it would help if they did because the project fails after a year due to the overwhelming burden of the disorganized legacy. Note that it's not just me on the project; it's also a lot of other non-senior team members that aren't really capable of handling the legacy without introducing serious bugs. You're thinking in an over-constrained framework where there are just two choices -- either to form a consensus or to reject the ideas. If instead you take a higher view, you will see that giving senior engineers ownership and freedom allows the management to see if the engineers sink or swim. The technical lessons will then be more apparent.
dwoldrich 2y ago
> it would help if they did because the project fails after a year due to the overwhelming burden of the disorganized legacy It's always someone else's fault with you. It's always someone else's goof. It's a mystery why no one listens to you. Over a full year of disorganization where you are a powerless contributor and a non-lazy victim and those unfair tyrants deserve to crumple and fail at the end of it? I'm not buying what you're selling, hyperbole or not. To answer my own questions: There is no mechanism to self-check your cognition for viability. Only other people (the team) can check your ideas in the moment with agreed-upon evidence/track record as a long-term proof. Because you need others to validate your strategies and designs, which are likely flawed, you need to work harmoniously with others. Therefore, you need to ingratiate yourself to them and respect them so you can influence them and you'll eventually get your way with the team if you're any good. It's called being a team player.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  You really have no shame making incorrect and toxic assumptions. No, I wouldn't just keep working on a failing project for a year or more. I would leave well before the year is over. I know about the failures only because the project was there before me for a certain number of years. I need to ingratiate myself to absolutely no one. One can nevertheless be a good team player by doing and delivering what takes on. In contrast, with agile there is no individual responsibility.

shrimp_emoji 2y ago

[dead]

OutOfHere 2y ago

I am really not saying they should, but it would help if they did because the project fails after a year due to the overwhelming burden of the disorganized legacy. Note that it's not just me on the project; it's also a lot of other non-senior team members that aren't really capable of handling the legacy without introducing serious bugs. You're thinking in an over-constrained framework where there are just two choices -- either to form a consensus or to reject the ideas. If instead you take a higher view, you will see that giving senior engineers ownership and freedom allows the management to see if the engineers sink or swim. The technical lessons will then be more apparent.

dwoldrich 2y ago

> it would help if they did because the project fails after a year due to the overwhelming burden of the disorganized legacy It's always someone else's fault with you. It's always someone else's goof. It's a mystery why no one listens to you. Over a full year of disorganization where you are a powerless contributor and a non-lazy victim and those unfair tyrants deserve to crumple and fail at the end of it? I'm not buying what you're selling, hyperbole or not. To answer my own questions: There is no mechanism to self-check your cognition for viability. Only other people (the team) can check your ideas in the moment with agreed-upon evidence/track record as a long-term proof. Because you need others to validate your strategies and designs, which are likely flawed, you need to work harmoniously with others. Therefore, you need to ingratiate yourself to them and respect them so you can influence them and you'll eventually get your way with the team if you're any good. It's called being a team player.

OutOfHere 2y ago
You really have no shame making incorrect and toxic assumptions. No, I wouldn't just keep working on a failing project for a year or more. I would leave well before the year is over. I know about the failures only because the project was there before me for a certain number of years. I need to ingratiate myself to absolutely no one. One can nevertheless be a good team player by doing and delivering what takes on. In contrast, with agile there is no individual responsibility.