Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule (2009)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule (2009)

#11

Post by calcsam »

voxmatt wrote: post #9

We built a tool around this essay to help better coordinate across maker and manager time: https://www.getclockwise.com/ At the core, it defragments your calendar, but it also provides a suite of utilities to help you better organize your time (color coding, Slack status, personal calendar sync, auto travel time, etc.). PG's essay has been a consistent point of inspiration for us. Engineering teams at teams from 5 –…

Thanks for building Clockwise. Our entire team uses it, and it's quite useful for blocking off chunks of time.

The one part where we run into trouble is: we give our Calendly links a ton to external folks to schedule meetings.

Now either we mark our Clockwise blocks as "busy" in which case it's very difficult to schedule a meeting with us via Calendly, or "free" in which case people can schedule meetings with us at any point during the block in which case the block usually gets broken up.

Something that would be great is the ability to allow meetings in eg the first 45m or last 45m of a Clockwise block >2hrs long.

Whether you accomplish this by fragmenting blocks (45m free / 1 hr busy / 45m free), or some deeper integration w/ Calendly is immaterial, but this sort of thing would be immensely helpful!

Re: Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule (2009)

#14

Post by killjoywashere »

I have a similar "partition" but it's forced on me by laws of physics: I live on a tropical island a bit less than half-way around the world. By force of everyone else's schedule in the US, my "business time" goes from about 5 am (about as early as I can bear to take a meeting) to about 9 am when everyone on the west coast is wrapping up their day. Then I attend to my work in the lab where I can sit down to the first "maker" part of my day, diagnosing cancer under the microscope. After dinner I usually have a second "maker period", reading papers, working through a computer science text (I never got a formal computing education but was lucky that physics proved to be "close enough"), planning experiments, and writing long-form business documents.

Re: Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule (2009)

#15

Post by foobar_ »

This also called process orientation vs goal orientation. Goal orientation looks good on paper but its largely a disaster. It's good to be both but err on the side of the process. There's a reason why great mangers are programmers. Shit managers are in it for the money or status and are likely the types to yell out - why isn't it done yet.

It doesn't take a whole lotta imagination to come up with world-changing and ambitious goals.

Re: Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule (2009)

#16

Post by teddyh »

foobar_ wrote: post #15

This also called process orientation vs goal orientation. Goal orientation looks good on paper but its largely a disaster. It's good to be both but err on the side of the process. There's a reason why great mangers are programmers. Shit managers are in it for the money or status and are likely the types to yell out - why isn't it done yet. It doesn't take a whole lotta imagination to come up with world-changing and a…

> This also called process orientation vs goal orientation.

A.k.a. “Goals vs. Systems”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwcKTYvupJw

Re: Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule (2009)

#17

Post by foobar_ »

teddyh wrote: post #16
foobar_ wrote: post #15

This also called process orientation vs goal orientation. Goal orientation looks good on paper but its largely a disaster. It's good to be both but err on the side of the process. There's a reason why great mangers are programmers. Shit managers are in it for the money or status and are likely the types to yell out - why isn't it done yet. It doesn't take a whole lotta imagination to come up with world-changing and a…

> This also called process orientation vs goal orientation. A.k.a. “Goals vs. Systems”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwcKTYvupJw

Exactly! Thanks for the link.

Re: Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule (2009)

#18

Post by dang »

ineedasername wrote: post #5
dang wrote: post #3

Thread from 2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16922147 2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10658187 2012: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4512023 2009: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=718279

Yes, but there's always new people popping up, and it's a useful concept to keep in mind, especially if you manage "makers".

Oh yes. As the other repliers explained, the intent behind linking to past discussions is just to satisfy curiosity. Otherwise we'd mark the post [dupe] and bury it.

I wish I could find a brief way to signify this when making such a post. It would be tedious to spell the intention out every time, and yet without it, a lot of readers mistakenly think that it's about shaming the submitter for reposting; exactly the opposite of what we mean!

Re: Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule (2009)

#19

Post by Normal_gaussian »

dang wrote: post #18
ineedasername wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but there's always new people popping up, and it's a useful concept to keep in mind, especially if you manage "makers".

Oh yes. As the other repliers explained, the intent behind linking to past discussions is just to satisfy curiosity. Otherwise we'd mark the post [dupe] and bury it. I wish I could find a brief way to signify this when making such a post. It would be tedious to spell the intention out every time, and yet without it, a lot of readers mistakenly think that it's about shaming the submitter for reposting; exactly the opp…

I don't know what you've tried, however calling them 'archives' or 'archived threads' may increase contrast with this thread.

Finishing with a (somewhat forced perhaps) positive note may encourage this one eg "I'm looking forwards to today's insights".

Then again, this could just be fixating on the little problems!

Re: Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule (2009)

#20

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

dang wrote: post #18
ineedasername wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but there's always new people popping up, and it's a useful concept to keep in mind, especially if you manage "makers".

Oh yes. As the other repliers explained, the intent behind linking to past discussions is just to satisfy curiosity. Otherwise we'd mark the post [dupe] and bury it. I wish I could find a brief way to signify this when making such a post. It would be tedious to spell the intention out every time, and yet without it, a lot of readers mistakenly think that it's about shaming the submitter for reposting; exactly the opp…

"Previous threads, for further reading" or "for the curious" or something like that, perhaps?
Post reply on HN