5 ms·

>trying to get visibility They could review PRs and commits and specs to get visibility and reduce comms overhead, if they had the skills and time. The non-te

>trying to get visibility They could review PRs and commits and specs to get visibility and reduce comms overhead, if they had the skills and time. The non-technical manager also takes great conveniences in making technical people spend their time translating things. But no one ever asks the manager to learn new skills as much as they make developers do it.

plagiarist 7mo ago
The standups are also organized around disrupting a small group of people for the convenience of one.
- jimbokun 7mo ago
  Standups should eliminate almost all other meetings engineers need to attend. Except to go deeper on questions that came up in standup that cannot be instantly resolved. Otherwise yeah there’s really no point.
  - plagiarist 7mo ago
    I would be pleased with the standup if it eliminated other meetings, but that has definitely not been my experience.
    - parasubvert 7mo ago
      there should be only 3 regular meetings in an agile engineering team - weekly iteration planning (1-2 hours max) - daily standup (15 mins max) - weekly demo & retro (1-2 hours max) literally everything else is work off the kanban board or backlog. in my teams everyone was told to decline all meetings unless it explicitly led to the completion of a weekly planned story/task. this way all meetings for the team have a clear agenda and end in mind. for mandatory external meetings & running interference with external parties, there are ways to insulate the majority of the team from that.
      - sunrunner 7mo ago
        Is that three kinds of regular meetings? Because I count 8 meetings (and four kinds, as I don't think I've ever had demo and retro combined due to different groups of people being in both).
        parasubvert 7mo ago
        Sure, I was being loose with my terminology, you are right to correct this. the point was in a 40 hour work week, it's reasonable for 15% of it to spent in coordination meetings, while 85% is directly related to progress. Usually the retro is after the demo when other folks leave the room / drop from the zoom :-)
        sunrunner 7mo ago
        Not correcting, just clarifying for myself. I sure wish I had such a controlled environment with only 15% of time in coordination and where standup actually was 15 mins and not a segue into the everything meeting.
    - jimbokun 7mo ago
      Be the change you want to see.
  - depr 7mo ago
    Do you mean standups as part of Scrum? Scrum dictates several other meetings.
    - jimbokun 7mo ago
      I will allow one more meeting to start a new sprint and end the previous one. Everyone should have prepared ahead of time to report on all their sprint items and whether they were completed, if not why not, and to present the work they will be doing in the next sprint. If the Scrum Master or whatever their title schedules any other repeating process meetings, fire them.
      - radiator 7mo ago
        But what about that meeting that starts with "how do you feel today?" and "if you were a car, what car would you be? And why?".
        jimbokun 7mo ago
        Well obviously that’s an exception and must be allowed.
  - sage76 7mo ago
    In my last company (before I left tech forever) I would tell my team that I am blocked on something or my progress is slow because of whatever reason and it would all get ignored lol. It was almost like they required the standup as part of the process but never used it the way it should be used.
bartread 7mo ago
This is a really interesting point that too often goes unexamined. I don’t know how to design and integrate systems and products, and write code, because I was born that way. I had to learn. Likewise, later on, I had to learn project management, and product management, and the language of business so I could communicate effectively with those lacking a background in technology. Again, wasn’t born that way: had to learn. But in a quarter of a century, the number of people on the commercial side who’ve bothered to learn enough about the technology side to have an informed conversation? Very few. Probably count them on one hand (the naive way: not using binary). And bear in mind we’re talking about businesses that were heavily if not totally reliant on technology and the delivery of technology solutions for their continued existence. You’d think a few more of these people would want to take a bit more responsibility for those outcomes, and maybe be a bit less disruptive to productivity, given their livelihoods have often depended on the success of said outcomes. Like I say: interesting, isn’t it?

plagiarist 7mo ago

The standups are also organized around disrupting a small group of people for the convenience of one.

jimbokun 7mo ago
Standups should eliminate almost all other meetings engineers need to attend. Except to go deeper on questions that came up in standup that cannot be instantly resolved. Otherwise yeah there’s really no point.
- plagiarist 7mo ago
  I would be pleased with the standup if it eliminated other meetings, but that has definitely not been my experience.
  - parasubvert 7mo ago
    there should be only 3 regular meetings in an agile engineering team - weekly iteration planning (1-2 hours max) - daily standup (15 mins max) - weekly demo & retro (1-2 hours max) literally everything else is work off the kanban board or backlog. in my teams everyone was told to decline all meetings unless it explicitly led to the completion of a weekly planned story/task. this way all meetings for the team have a clear agenda and end in mind. for mandatory external meetings & running interference with external parties, there are ways to insulate the majority of the team from that.
    - sunrunner 7mo ago
      Is that three kinds of regular meetings? Because I count 8 meetings (and four kinds, as I don't think I've ever had demo and retro combined due to different groups of people being in both).
      - parasubvert 7mo ago
        Sure, I was being loose with my terminology, you are right to correct this. the point was in a 40 hour work week, it's reasonable for 15% of it to spent in coordination meetings, while 85% is directly related to progress. Usually the retro is after the demo when other folks leave the room / drop from the zoom :-)
        sunrunner 7mo ago
        Not correcting, just clarifying for myself. I sure wish I had such a controlled environment with only 15% of time in coordination and where standup actually was 15 mins and not a segue into the everything meeting.
  - jimbokun 7mo ago
    Be the change you want to see.
- depr 7mo ago
  Do you mean standups as part of Scrum? Scrum dictates several other meetings.
  - jimbokun 7mo ago
    I will allow one more meeting to start a new sprint and end the previous one. Everyone should have prepared ahead of time to report on all their sprint items and whether they were completed, if not why not, and to present the work they will be doing in the next sprint. If the Scrum Master or whatever their title schedules any other repeating process meetings, fire them.
    - radiator 7mo ago
      But what about that meeting that starts with "how do you feel today?" and "if you were a car, what car would you be? And why?".
      - jimbokun 7mo ago
        Well obviously that’s an exception and must be allowed.
- sage76 7mo ago
  In my last company (before I left tech forever) I would tell my team that I am blocked on something or my progress is slow because of whatever reason and it would all get ignored lol. It was almost like they required the standup as part of the process but never used it the way it should be used.

bartread 7mo ago

This is a really interesting point that too often goes unexamined. I don’t know how to design and integrate systems and products, and write code, because I was born that way. I had to learn. Likewise, later on, I had to learn project management, and product management, and the language of business so I could communicate effectively with those lacking a background in technology. Again, wasn’t born that way: had to learn. But in a quarter of a century, the number of people on the commercial side who’ve bothered to learn enough about the technology side to have an informed conversation? Very few. Probably count them on one hand (the naive way: not using binary). And bear in mind we’re talking about businesses that were heavily if not totally reliant on technology and the delivery of technology solutions for their continued existence. You’d think a few more of these people would want to take a bit more responsibility for those outcomes, and maybe be a bit less disruptive to productivity, given their livelihoods have often depended on the success of said outcomes. Like I say: interesting, isn’t it?