3 ms·

Of course you push forward as a team, committal here I take to mean between two or more engineers trying to debate a technical option. Why must every engineer

Of course you push forward as a team, committal here I take to mean between two or more engineers trying to debate a technical option. Why must every engineer have an opinion on every technical decision if there are no hard requirements? I may only have an opinion if there is a hard requirement. I gave an example below. > Say we must choose where to get dinner. Japanese or Indian. Without constraints, I do not care. But if Antoine and Lin are coming and Antoine has a shellfish allergy while Lin is a vegetarian, I now want to commit because I like their company and Indian is the better choice. Why make a fuss about Japanese or Indian if I do not care unless there is actually a real reason to pick one over the other? I just want to go out to dinner and have a good time otherwise; I am happy with Japanese or Indian! Do you see the difference? If Antoine and Lin are not coming, I will eat anywhere; I don't care -- let's have a good time! If Antoine and Lin are coming, I think we should pick Indian because they have requirements that we should consider -- let's have a good time! It seems pretty clear to me that not every engineer must have an opinion on every technical decision to which they should commit when sometimes, the choice doesn't matter and it's easier to let the individual with a stronger opinion drive the choice because the other option is friction for no reason and expending energy debating made up constraints.

Aurornis 2y ago
> Why must every engineer have an opinion on every technical decision if there are no hard requirements? This isn’t what anyone is suggesting. Committing doesn’t mean everyone needs an opinion on everything. > It seems pretty clear to me that not every engineer must have an opinion on every technical decision to which they should commit when sometimes Again, not what’s being discussed. You don’t need an opinion on everything. Your team does need to commit to something and move on. The phrase “disagree and commit” is commonly used when engineers have opinions on everything and are struggling to commit. Committing != having opinions on everything.
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  > This isn’t what anyone is suggesting. Did you read the article? > Some engineers think it’s a virtue to remain non-committal in technical discussions. Should our team build a new feature in an event-driven or synchronous way? Well, it depends: there are many strong technical reasons on each side, so it’s better to keep an open mind and not come down on either side. This strategy is fine when you’re a junior engineer, but at some point you’ll be the person in the room with the most context (or technical skill, or institutional power). At that point, you need to take a position, whether you feel particularly confident or not. That is the very first paragraph of the article. Take up your complaints with the author of the article; not me!
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    I'm not sure how that paragraph gave you the understanding that "every engineer must have an opinion". It explains that the most senior/influential/knowledgeable engineers must have an opinion because they're the ones making the decisions. In that context, the decision is the opinion; not having an opinion is the same as not deciding, which is obviously bad for the person/people responsible for deciding.

Aurornis 2y ago

> Why must every engineer have an opinion on every technical decision if there are no hard requirements? This isn’t what anyone is suggesting. Committing doesn’t mean everyone needs an opinion on everything. > It seems pretty clear to me that not every engineer must have an opinion on every technical decision to which they should commit when sometimes Again, not what’s being discussed. You don’t need an opinion on everything. Your team does need to commit to something and move on. The phrase “disagree and commit” is commonly used when engineers have opinions on everything and are struggling to commit. Committing != having opinions on everything.

CharlieDigital 2y ago
> This isn’t what anyone is suggesting. Did you read the article? > Some engineers think it’s a virtue to remain non-committal in technical discussions. Should our team build a new feature in an event-driven or synchronous way? Well, it depends: there are many strong technical reasons on each side, so it’s better to keep an open mind and not come down on either side. This strategy is fine when you’re a junior engineer, but at some point you’ll be the person in the room with the most context (or technical skill, or institutional power). At that point, you need to take a position, whether you feel particularly confident or not. That is the very first paragraph of the article. Take up your complaints with the author of the article; not me!
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  I'm not sure how that paragraph gave you the understanding that "every engineer must have an opinion". It explains that the most senior/influential/knowledgeable engineers must have an opinion because they're the ones making the decisions. In that context, the decision is the opinion; not having an opinion is the same as not deciding, which is obviously bad for the person/people responsible for deciding.