4 ms·

>> We need to take control of this game. We need to take it back and make it good-- and fast. I have been thinking along these lines as well but I am unsure on

by lhnz 14y ago

>> We need to take control of this game. We need to take it back and make it good-- and fast. I have been thinking along these lines as well but I am unsure on what can be done. The real problem here is that our profession contains many shy, socially-awkward types, and guys and girls that were bullied when they were school and haven't fully recovered. Many don't understand how status is conveyed or are in complete denial that it exists. If you are the only developer in the room that wishes to be treated with respect, to be autonomous and to (learn to) operate on many levels then it seems like you are really on your own in trying to get these things. Many will continue to eat from the hand that beats them, and won't take the necessary risk to get themselves a better position and to help each other even when one of their team mates decides to make a stand. (I read a lot of your articles and I have to say I have gone DFA before and I will do it again.) What is really needed is some kind of professional association that fights for our rights. A forward-thinking organisation that has good principles and can't easily be co-opted. Perhaps also a way of accrediting organisations that have great working conditions and a culture of respect. Maybe the only two which hit the list are Valve and Github. But once every cool startup is run like this then larger corporations will have to compete on a cultural level for talent. I would like for all of us to be able to apply ourselves on a strategic and creative level no matter what our role in a company is. I wonder who decided that because we implement we should not be allowed to create, design, and think for ourselves? They don't have the right to take this from me, nor do they have the right to take it from you. The other night I was speaking to a friend who has found herself in a sales position where she is allowed to pitch ideas to clients and see where she can take things. She was happy and felt like she had finally found real freedom. How many of us have been able to grow the network of contacts and future clients required to solve business problems? We're being held back but we're also holding each other back. And I now realise you can't solve tribe problems on an individual level. There has to be a way that we can all work together on this. Are others interested?

michaelochurch 14y ago
I am interested. I'm pretty sure my largest contribution to software to date has nothing to do with code. I named something: open allocation. Now we've defined terms and we have a banner. My goal with that-- and it's too early to know if I've succeeded-- is to wake people up and realize that their current, micromanaged state of closed allocation is inferior to something that's possible. We will see an increasing proliferation of open allocation, engineering-driven cultures. (We'll also see pretenders who claim to be OA but aren't. That's unfortunate, but it's just a sign that the good guys are starting to win.) It will take time, as good things always do, but time is on our side.
- lhnz 14y ago
  One thing though, is there evidence that it leads to a better working culture and perhaps stronger business? Or is the proof still to come out? I love the idea of open-allocation but I worry that at companies in which people drag their heels, avoid learning and other bad things that it could be harmful. I also wonder whether there are people will not be business minded or innovative enough to do worthwhile work. Obviously scratching personal-itches sometimes leads to great products but we might all just play out our neurosis and then through commitment and cognitive dissonance chase ourselves down rabbit holes. Maybe my fear is completely unjustified... Anyway, my idea for an action is the creation of some kind of check-list for a humanity-ready™ company sort of like the Joel Test. Perhaps I or another could create a GitHub repository and a website to get this rolling. What is important, I think, is to get people to talk about what they consider the qualities of a great company to be and what principles and practices would this company hold. Buy-in and conversation would help the memetic process. The next-step after that, once people were on-board would be to create some kind of rating system and then perhaps to reach out to recruitment companies and see if they would add a feature for companies to mark themselves on their adherence to some of the best practices. Sort of like how the Joel Test is used on some recruitment sites... Actually I'm still not really sure whether this would work because life is never that simple and I am sure things will more or less play out in this direction anyway. Certainly conversation on the ideas is worthwhile, however.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    One thing though, is there evidence that it leads to a better working culture and perhaps stronger business? Or is the proof still to come out? Valve is at 300 people and enormously successful. It has higher revenue per employee than Google, Apple, or Microsoft. I love the idea of open-allocation but I worry that at companies in which people drag their heels, avoid learning and other bad things that it could be harmful. My guess is that it's these corrupt, closed-allocation, intensely political companies that generate this kind of behavior.

by lhnz 14y ago

michaelochurch 14y ago

I am interested. I'm pretty sure my largest contribution to software to date has nothing to do with code. I named something: open allocation. Now we've defined terms and we have a banner. My goal with that-- and it's too early to know if I've succeeded-- is to wake people up and realize that their current, micromanaged state of closed allocation is inferior to something that's possible. We will see an increasing proliferation of open allocation, engineering-driven cultures. (We'll also see pretenders who claim to be OA but aren't. That's unfortunate, but it's just a sign that the good guys are starting to win.) It will take time, as good things always do, but time is on our side.

lhnz 14y ago
One thing though, is there evidence that it leads to a better working culture and perhaps stronger business? Or is the proof still to come out? I love the idea of open-allocation but I worry that at companies in which people drag their heels, avoid learning and other bad things that it could be harmful. I also wonder whether there are people will not be business minded or innovative enough to do worthwhile work. Obviously scratching personal-itches sometimes leads to great products but we might all just play out our neurosis and then through commitment and cognitive dissonance chase ourselves down rabbit holes. Maybe my fear is completely unjustified... Anyway, my idea for an action is the creation of some kind of check-list for a humanity-ready™ company sort of like the Joel Test. Perhaps I or another could create a GitHub repository and a website to get this rolling. What is important, I think, is to get people to talk about what they consider the qualities of a great company to be and what principles and practices would this company hold. Buy-in and conversation would help the memetic process. The next-step after that, once people were on-board would be to create some kind of rating system and then perhaps to reach out to recruitment companies and see if they would add a feature for companies to mark themselves on their adherence to some of the best practices. Sort of like how the Joel Test is used on some recruitment sites... Actually I'm still not really sure whether this would work because life is never that simple and I am sure things will more or less play out in this direction anyway. Certainly conversation on the ideas is worthwhile, however.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  One thing though, is there evidence that it leads to a better working culture and perhaps stronger business? Or is the proof still to come out? Valve is at 300 people and enormously successful. It has higher revenue per employee than Google, Apple, or Microsoft. I love the idea of open-allocation but I worry that at companies in which people drag their heels, avoid learning and other bad things that it could be harmful. My guess is that it's these corrupt, closed-allocation, intensely political companies that generate this kind of behavior.