| ▲ | MattGaiser 11 hours ago |
| There are plenty of devs who do nothing beyond taking a Jira ticket scoped by others, implementing it, and then grabbing the next ticket. While they may not have been very successful, they did have a place. |
|
| ▲ | verelo 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| You’re right but i have always preferred people who can do a little more. Nothing against the socially awkward and conflict avoidant nature in many of these friends, but people who push back and fight to communicate their views and passions often got our team better outcomes than someone who just turns up and does the work they’re asked to do. |
| |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | As long as it is not opposite set of skills (talks a lot without knowledge to back it up so essentially using charisma to convince people to do the wrong thing most of the time) then yes, a lil bit of negotiation can save you a whole lot of work in the long run (XY problems being one example) | | |
| ▲ | verelo 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | For sure, I’ve been tricked into hiring those people before too. It’s good that there’s still something hard in running an organization, the whole “what is value?” question feels like it’ll be one of the few things we have to maintain work for humans over the next little while. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pjmlp 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Looks very robotic to me, never worked on a place where meetings and dealing with other humans wasn't part of the job. |
| |
| ▲ | Retric 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’ve been on plenty of teams where meetings didn’t actually require any meaningful participation from most people. | | |
| ▲ | nuancebydefault 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Meetings without any meaningful participation from most people? I guess too many people in the meetings? | | |
| ▲ | win311fwg 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is likely referring to what has become known as the standup, where developers read off the commit log for the "manager" who hasn't yet figured out how to use a computer. | | |
| |
| ▲ | pjmlp 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Never been the case for me, additionally I have always worked in shared desks or offices. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | miav 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is this genuinely common? I’ve only ever seen that level of hand holding extended to new grad hires. |
| |
| ▲ | veyh 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have 13 years of professional experience, and I work in a small company (15 people). Apart from one or two weekly meetings, I mostly just work on stuff independently. I'm the solo developer for a number of projects ranging from embedded microcontrollers to distributed backend systems. There's very little handholding; it's more like requirements come in, and results come out. I have been part of some social circles before but they were always centered around a common activity like a game, and once that activity went away, so did those connections. As I started working on side hustles, it occurred to me that not having any kind of social network (not even social media accounts) may have added an additional level of difficulty. I am still working on the side hustles, though. | | |
| ▲ | nuancebydefault 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > it's more like requirements come in, and results come out. Wow someone is very good at setting requirements. I have never seen that in 25 years of dev life. | | |
| ▲ | nomel 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've seen it many many times, a few from myself. It's not so hard if you're an expert in the field or concept they're asking the solution for, especially if you've already implemented it in the past, in some way, so know all the hidden requirements that they aren't even aware of. If you're in a senior position, in a small group, it's very possible you're the only one that can even reason about the solution, beyond some high level desires. I've worked in several teams with non-technical people/managers, where a good portion of the requirements must be ignored, with the biggest soft skill requirement being pretending they're ideas are reasonable. It's also true if it's more technical than product based. I work in manufacturing R&D where a task might be "we need this robot, with this camera, to align to align to and touch this thing with this other thing within some um of error." Software touches every industry of man. Your results may vary. | |
| ▲ | ragall 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've seen that plenty of times. I suspect that you haven't seen it because you live in a place with high cost of living, which induces a high turnover in personnel, or perhaps you've been working in very dynamic markets such as SaaS. When I was starting my career in Europe as freelance sysadmin, I worked several times for small companies that were definitely not at the forefront of technology, were specialised in some small niche and pretty small (10-15 engineers), but all its engineers had been there for 10-20 years. They pretty well paid compared to the rest of the country, and within their niche (in one case microcontroller programming for industrial robots) they were world experts. They had no intention of moving to another city or another company, nor getting a promotion or learning a new trade. They were simply extremely good at what they were doing (which in the grand scheme of things was probably pretty obsolete technology), and whenever a new project came they could figure out the requirements and implement the product without much external input. The first time I met a "project manager" was when I started working for a US company. | |
| ▲ | veyh 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Of course, sometimes people realize that what they asked for wasn't actually what was needed. | | |
| ▲ | pmg101 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I mean... This "realization" is what triggered the advent of agile, 2 decades ago, right? People almost never know what they want, so put SOMETHING in front of them, fast, and let's go from there |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kube-system 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It definitely happens at bloated organizations that aren’t really good at software development. I think it is especially more common in organizations where software is a cost center and business rules involve a specialized discipline that software developers wouldn’t typically have expertise in. |
|
|
| ▲ | falloutx 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People gotta remember its a job just like anything else. I dont see any other profession going above and beyond so why should that be levied upon on programmers, I don't see PMs trying to understand code, CEOs trying to understand the customer more than the investor. |
|
| ▲ | sbrother 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I've heard this, and I've even seen it in plenty of poorly performing businesses, but I've never actually seen it in a highly performing, profitable tech company. Other than at the new grad level but it's treated as net-negative training while they learn how to build consensus and scope out work. Not coincidentally, the places I've seen this approach to work are the same places that have hired me as a consultant to bring an effective team to build something high priority or fix a dumpster fire. |
| |
| ▲ | tikhonj 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | A lot of highly performing teams don't even use tickets. | | |
| ▲ | win311fwg 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do any highly performing teams use tickets? A fly-by-night charlatan successfully pushed ticking into our organization in the past year and I would say it was a disaster. I only have the experience of one, but from that experience I am now not sure you can even build good software that way. I originally hoped it was growing pains, but I see more and more fundamental flaws. | | |
| ▲ | yurishimo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve worked at one, but it required a PM who was ruthless about cutting scope and we focused on user stories after establishing a strong feedback pipeline, both technically through CI/CD/tests and with stakeholders. Looking back, that was the best team I’ve ever worked in. We split up to separate corners of the company once the project was delivered (12 month buildout of an alpha that was internally tested and then fleshed out). Maybe I had greenfield glasses but I came in for the last 3 months and it was still humming. | |
| ▲ | layer8 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How do you keep track of tasks that need to be done, of reported bugs and feature requests? | | |
| ▲ | win311fwg 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Previously? There was an understanding of the problem trying to be solved. The gaps left the pangs of "this isn't right". Now I have no way to know where things stand. It's all disconnected and abstracted. The ticket may suggest that something is done, but if the customer isn't happy, it isn't actually. Worse, now we have people adding tickets without any intent to do the work themselves and there isn't a great way to determine if they're just making up random work, which is something that definitely happens sometimes, or if it truly reflects on what the customer needs. You might say that isn't technically a problem with ticketing itself, and I would agree. The problems are really with what came with the ticketing. But what would you need tickets for other than to try and eliminate the customer from the picture? If you understand the problem alongside the customer, you know what needs to be done just as you know when you need to eat lunch. Do you create 'lunchtime' tickets for yourself? I've personally never found the need. | | |
| ▲ | whstl 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I find that the current way we do Scrum is way more waterfall-ish than what we had before. Managers just walked around and talked, and knew what each person was doing. We traded properly working on problems for the Kafkaesque nightmare of modern development. |
| |
| ▲ | tikhonj an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I've realized it's a different paradigm in (very loosely) the Kuhn sense. You wouldn't track tasks if you're fundamentally not even thinking of the work in terms of tasks! (You might still want a bug tracker to track reported bugs, but it's a bug tracker, not a work tracker.) What you actually do is going to depend on the kind of project you're working on and the people you're working with. But it mostly boils down to just talking to people. You can get a lot done even at scale just by talking to people. |
|
|
|
|