Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#31

Post by leggomylibro » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 4:11 PM UTC

Qworg wrote: post #11

sb8244 wrote: post #7

I often say that we don't need to agree, just commit together. I particularly like disagree and commit better. It seems like it would shorten time to decision as long as no one takes it personally.

I really like "disagree and commit" but I'm worried how well it would work in most corporations. I think it requires incredible alignment amongst the decision makers about the goals of the project - something that is in short supply.

It sounds like he realizes that too, with his comments towards the end of the letter:

"Fourth, recognize true misalignment issues early and escalate them immediately. Sometimes teams have different objectives and fundamentally different views. They are not aligned. No amount of discussion, no number of meetings will resolve that deep misalignment. Without escalation, the default dispute resolution mechanism for this scenario is exhaustion. Whoever has more stamina carries the decision."

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#32

Post by polysaturate » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 4:12 PM UTC

wjamesg wrote: post #24

_gi12 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a surprisingly common trap to fall into. I worked at a startup in which the CTO criticized my dev team for not having a perfectly linear burn down chart. Every week in our retro we had the same discussion about how to improve the shape of our burn down chart; we tried putting higher valued stories at the front of the queue, involving QA earlier in the sprint, and cranking out 1 pointers mid week to tweak the…

Burn down chart?

An actual serious answer:

It's a line chart that shows story points starting at the top left in the beginning of the sprint. Which shows all points to be done, trending towards 0 points with 0 days left in the sprint, in the lower right.

Linear means that the same points are done each day to allow the line to be perfectly linear between the top left and bottom right.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#33

Post by Diederich » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 4:14 PM UTC

_gi12 wrote: post #22

mstank wrote: post #2

"A common example is process as proxy. Good process serves you so you can serve customers. But if you’re not watchful, the process can become the thing. This can happen very easily in large organizations. The process becomes the proxy for the result you want. You stop looking at outcomes and just make sure you’re doing the process right. Gulp." Seems like this is exactly the kind of issue companies like United Airlin…

This is a surprisingly common trap to fall into. I worked at a startup in which the CTO criticized my dev team for not having a perfectly linear burn down chart. Every week in our retro we had the same discussion about how to improve the shape of our burn down chart; we tried putting higher valued stories at the front of the queue, involving QA earlier in the sprint, and cranking out 1 pointers mid week to tweak the…

This was happening at a startup? How common is this kind of process slavery in startups?

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#34

Post by ge96 » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 4:16 PM UTC

wjamesg wrote: post #24

_gi12 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a surprisingly common trap to fall into. I worked at a startup in which the CTO criticized my dev team for not having a perfectly linear burn down chart. Every week in our retro we had the same discussion about how to improve the shape of our burn down chart; we tried putting higher valued stories at the front of the queue, involving QA earlier in the sprint, and cranking out 1 pointers mid week to tweak the…

Burn down chart?

This whole time I thought it meant how long your money has going to last.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#35

Post by smokeyj » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 4:16 PM UTC

smokeyj wrote: post #10

mstank wrote: post #2

"A common example is process as proxy. Good process serves you so you can serve customers. But if you’re not watchful, the process can become the thing. This can happen very easily in large organizations. The process becomes the proxy for the result you want. You stop looking at outcomes and just make sure you’re doing the process right. Gulp." Seems like this is exactly the kind of issue companies like United Airlin…

This is how I feel about our democratic process. The process is you pick one of two parties. Then you get into a face bloodying fight with the other party. Nothing gets done, then you pat yourself on the back for doing your part. When you come to the realization that nothing has been accomplished, you blame those who didn't participate in the brawl. Suggesting that people work ON the process rather than IN the proces…

This comment seems to be well received based on the points. I think about this often and it drives me nuts that the two party system is the best we have. It's like we're trying to optimize an operating system at every level EXCEPT THE KERNEL. Suggesting that you don't buy into the two party system is met with skepticism, as if you're a closet supporter of one party. Or worse, that by not supporting a party you're implicitly siding with "the other side" (You know, because we're on different teams). "You're either with us or against us!!'.

Can someone just make a p2p party already? Any billionaire in SV could bankroll this project with their weekend funny money. I'd be willing to donate development hours. I'm just wondering if people would be willing to venture out of their comfort zone and "throw away their vote" for something that isn't mainstream.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#36

Post by joshaidan » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 4:16 PM UTC

I encountered "process as proxy" today dealing with Cisco. We were requesting a replacement for a defective part, they asked us for our serial number, which we provided, but then responded to us that our serial number was invalid. Likely because it wasn't registered. We were told that we had to contact our sales manager, or open a TAC with a different department because they department only deals with technical issues.

Could they not have done something to help us, maybe forwarding the ticket to the department that could register the serial number, to help us rather than just leaving us stranded? It's as though they want to follow process rather than helping the customer.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#37

Post by ryandrake » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 4:17 PM UTC

mstank wrote: post #2

"A common example is process as proxy. Good process serves you so you can serve customers. But if you’re not watchful, the process can become the thing. This can happen very easily in large organizations. The process becomes the proxy for the result you want. You stop looking at outcomes and just make sure you’re doing the process right. Gulp." Seems like this is exactly the kind of issue companies like United Airlin…

Reminds me of that Steve Jobs quote about IBM:

“People get confused; companies get confused. When they start getting bigger, they want to replicate their initial success. And a lot of them think, ‘Well, somehow, there’s some magic in the process of how that success was created.’ So they start to institutionalize process across the company. And before very long, people start to get confused that the process is the content."

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#38

Post by dangero » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 4:19 PM UTC

_gi12 wrote: post #22

mstank wrote: post #2

"A common example is process as proxy. Good process serves you so you can serve customers. But if you’re not watchful, the process can become the thing. This can happen very easily in large organizations. The process becomes the proxy for the result you want. You stop looking at outcomes and just make sure you’re doing the process right. Gulp." Seems like this is exactly the kind of issue companies like United Airlin…

This is a surprisingly common trap to fall into. I worked at a startup in which the CTO criticized my dev team for not having a perfectly linear burn down chart. Every week in our retro we had the same discussion about how to improve the shape of our burn down chart; we tried putting higher valued stories at the front of the queue, involving QA earlier in the sprint, and cranking out 1 pointers mid week to tweak the…

I also had this happen at a company I worked at, so as the leader of the software team I had a secret meeting with them and told them going forward we would create fake burndown charts for the CTO. Totally worked. He never complained again. For all I know the CTO was reporting on burndown to his peers and superiors and was trying to tell us to make it look better.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#39

Post by cmurf » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 4:22 PM UTC

smokeyj wrote: post #10

mstank wrote: post #2

"A common example is process as proxy. Good process serves you so you can serve customers. But if you’re not watchful, the process can become the thing. This can happen very easily in large organizations. The process becomes the proxy for the result you want. You stop looking at outcomes and just make sure you’re doing the process right. Gulp." Seems like this is exactly the kind of issue companies like United Airlin…

This is how I feel about our democratic process. The process is you pick one of two parties. Then you get into a face bloodying fight with the other party. Nothing gets done, then you pat yourself on the back for doing your part. When you come to the realization that nothing has been accomplished, you blame those who didn't participate in the brawl. Suggesting that people work ON the process rather than IN the proces…

It's more complicated than this. And because it's so complicated, people look at ways to make participation more efficient. Party affiliation happens to be the most common way people participate, because it's efficient. But it is inherently inaccurate, you don't actually know the person you're really voting for with this method, and you don't know their position on specific issues, and you don't even know non-political things about them.

We also aren't even a majoritarian democracy, often the winner has only a plurality of votes. Most voter eligible citizens don't vote (in the U.S. where it's not compulsory). We don't have range or preference voting, or run offs. All of these have consequences in the outcome.

I don't see many brawls in politics. That's maybe at dinner parties, on TV, and in forums. City council meetings are pretty boring and docile. D.C. has lots of nice friendly people (haha), which maybe superficial, but they have more manners than brawls day to day.

Possibly the one thing going on right now that left, right, hard left, hard right, center, and maybe even non-participants can agree on is a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. Entirely out. Publicly funded elections, do the hard work yourself, with volunteers, not moneyed special interests paying for your ads and so on. It would take an amendment because money is considered speech by SCOTUS, corporations have speech rights, so they can pretty much spend whatever they want on any message for any candidate. And those interests throw red meat to activate the brawls you see. They love that. It raises money. Activates people to vote who'd otherwise stay at home.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#40

Post by dangero » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 4:23 PM UTC

smokeyj wrote: post #35

smokeyj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how I feel about our democratic process. The process is you pick one of two parties. Then you get into a face bloodying fight with the other party. Nothing gets done, then you pat yourself on the back for doing your part. When you come to the realization that nothing has been accomplished, you blame those who didn't participate in the brawl. Suggesting that people work ON the process rather than IN the proces…

This comment seems to be well received based on the points. I think about this often and it drives me nuts that the two party system is the best we have. It's like we're trying to optimize an operating system at every level EXCEPT THE KERNEL. Suggesting that you don't buy into the two party system is met with skepticism, as if you're a closet supporter of one party. Or worse, that by not supporting a party you're imp…

Without runoff elections its always going to veer towards a two party system. It would work if we did two votes: vote first for who you want, then second vote for the best choice from top two.