3 ms·
At a previous employer, they used to have this process where they would classify each project as being in active development or being in maintenance, and even t
by supriyo-biswas 1y ago
At a previous employer, they used to have this process where they would classify each project as being in active development or being in maintenance, and even the tiniest bit of development work required the "initiation" of a "project" with budget planning and approvals.
At the time I dismissed it as a bureaucratic process invented by the company; after all, they had no dearth of leaders adding bureaucracy to systems for the purpose of empire-building and, to a lesser extent, asserting self-importance. However, upon reading about Section 174, it made some sense, and I wonder whether they might just get around to removing these processes.
- viraptor 1y ago> and even the tiniest of development work required the "initiation" of a "project" with budget planning and approvals. That's fully automateable though, right? Sounds like my script to upload a PR, create a JIRA ticket with the same name, link them up, auto-Done on merge.
- samrus 1y agoYou cant automate the tactical assessment of "do we want to incur this tax?" Not easily anyway
- viraptor 1y agoI meant most of the process and boilerplate being automated. Someone still has to go through the rubberstamping process, but at least the BS and clicks can come from the BS and clicks generator.
- samrus 1y agoYeah but thats almost trivial, tactics and strategy decisions are the limiting factor
- supriyo-biswas 1y agoAt the company I was speaking of, the business approval step involved many internal (and sometimes external meetings) and preparation of a feature and OKR document. While this was the obvious way of doing things there, without this project step I also don’t think it’d have been regarded as a valid classification step for tax purposes.