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

Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

nibblestew.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 405 posts

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#371

Post by Shared404 »

eitland wrote: post #332
Shared404 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's just what you're used to. Put me in front of a Linux desktop, and I can just start working. Put me in front of a Windows desktop, give me 30 minutes to set up what I need, and I can start working. Put me in front of a Mac, and come back to me still yelling at it five hours later. I'm sure I could learn if it was worth the time to me, but I definitely wouldn't argue that it's superior (for me personally a…

Yes it is really individual: I have an ex-colleague who was a linux super-user and awesome sysadmin but moved to Mac for his development laptop. He loved Mac, and couldn't stand the hassle of Linux anymore as far as I understood him. This confused me a lot as even though I wasn't even close to his level at that time I had no problems living with my Linux machines while my Mac laptop used to drive me crazy every day w…

You may be on to something with the keyboard idea.

I've always used i3/Sway/Pop!_Shell, or just dealt with windows subpar tiling. I'm picky about terminals as well, so that may have something to do with it. Although Mac's shell is nicer than windows (obviously), I can't stand the built in terminal app.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#372

Post by m463 »

Shared404 wrote: post #328
pak9rabid wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OSX is great at getting the fuck out of the way and letting you get more work done in my experience (development work).

I think it's just what you're used to. Put me in front of a Linux desktop, and I can just start working. Put me in front of a Windows desktop, give me 30 minutes to set up what I need, and I can start working. Put me in front of a Mac, and come back to me still yelling at it five hours later. I'm sure I could learn if it was worth the time to me, but I definitely wouldn't argue that it's superior (for me personally a…

I think my productivity graphs would look like:

  |          22

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#373

Post by Terretta »

grogenaut wrote: post #366
Kinrany wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like an awesome job. Literally paid to fix frustrating bureacratic processes. Like a professional user advocate paid to convince developers that the users do have a point and the request is not impossible.

Do you like firefighting and having uncomfortable conversations with people all the time.

Welp, I need more of yous than two pizzas would feed.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#374

Post by dragonwriter »

hnick wrote: post #196
the8472 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but getting to the reason might require un-peeling a few org layers to since the people enforcing the policy will not be the people who wrote the policy. The issue is that all the policy documents often only contain the One True Way to achieve their goals, while the goals remain unstated. The documents should always come with a rationale. And appending "exceptions may be granted for equivalent or better processes"…

> The issue is that all the policy documents often only contain the One True Way to achieve their goals, while the goals remain unstated. The documents should always come with a rationale. A reason can be argued against while a policy must just be followed. It's probably by design, because as soon as you put a reason that becomes a target and people start to get ideas about why it doesn't apply to them. Much like whe…

> A reason can be argued against while a policy must just be followed.

And if you talk to people directing policy efforts (who are often not the ones writing, or even actively choosing, policy but generally are the ones formally signing off), you often don't have to dig very far to find that settling discussions is as important of a rationale for the policy as any of the others. This obviously conflicts with ideals like continuous improvement, but it's true lots of places including those with nominal commitments to continuous improvement.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#375

Post by dragonwriter »

fjwefjh wrote: post #275
hnick wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is that all the policy documents often only contain the One True Way to achieve their goals, while the goals remain unstated. The documents should always come with a rationale. A reason can be argued against while a policy must just be followed. It's probably by design, because as soon as you put a reason that becomes a target and people start to get ideas about why it doesn't apply to them. Much like whe…

Or policy writers copy n pasted something off web. In my Mega Tech corp, we have security team that has created hodge podge of conflicting policies. For example, they ask some applications to be internal network only and other are accessible via web. But they can never provide their reasoning and get annoyed when we ask any details. The worst part is that some of their policies directly contradict with each other. Fo…

> Or policy writers copy n pasted something off web.

The fact that policy sponsors are more than anything looking to a single answer to end debate and establish uniformity is why policy writers can copy and paste stuff from the web and get it adopted as policy without a clear rationale connected to the organization’s particular circumstances. They aren't conflicting, alternative explanations.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#376

Post by dragonwriter »

whatshisface wrote: post #200
hnick wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is that all the policy documents often only contain the One True Way to achieve their goals, while the goals remain unstated. The documents should always come with a rationale. A reason can be argued against while a policy must just be followed. It's probably by design, because as soon as you put a reason that becomes a target and people start to get ideas about why it doesn't apply to them. Much like whe…

On the other hand, a reason can convince people, while a policy can be avoided, worked around or ignored while creating zero feelings of guilt.

> On the other hand, a reason can convince people,

Policies very often have official reasons for just this propaganda purpose, but it's worth noting that the reasons cited for the purpose of motivating compliance are often chosen for the specific purpose of how well they are anticipated to motivate compliance and not how well they reflect the actual reasons the policy is adopted, and thus they often are not in practice a good tool for understanding how to challenge the policy effectively.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#377

Post by dragonwriter »

whatshisface wrote: post #221
ardy42 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, a reason can convince people, while a policy can be avoided, worked around or ignored while creating zero feelings of guilt. Though, I'd imagine that, in many cases, adding reasons would turn a policy pamphlet into a textbook. This seems like one of those areas where there are unavoidable tradeoffs: * clear, concise, and rigid policies are easy to communicate and enforce, but frustrate people wit…

You could have one pamphlet with the policy, and a separate book with the reasoning, and instruct people to check the book when proposing a change or exception. Then all of the lazy compliant people could have their brevity, and the crackpots and geniuses would both get the explanatory text they needed.

> You could have one pamphlet with the policy, and a separate book with the reasoning, and instruct people to check the book when proposing a change or exception

Very often part of the purpose of the policy is to end debate about how to handle an issue, and to get the “crackpots and geniuses” to STFU.

That's not a motivation that policy sponsors usually want in print, though.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#378

Post by kill_nate_kill »

Terretta wrote: post #373
grogenaut wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you like firefighting and having uncomfortable conversations with people all the time.

Welp, I need more of yous than two pizzas would feed.

Shit, that's like .8 of me.

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#379

Post by andi999 »

klmadfejno wrote: post #326
andi999 wrote: post #65

My reason for this rule would be: if you allow consultanta to work from home, how do you make sure they are not double- selling their workhours? Like they bill you 8h, but only work 4h on your project.

Why would you care, assuming the work gets done on schedule? Billable hours is just a proxy for getting things done.

I think that is the way to find pricing for any development activity. There is an industry standard range on price per hour, but no standard on price per feature (which is impossible).

Re: Most “mandatory requirements” in corporations are imaginary

#380

Post by m463 »

sfifs wrote: post #25

In BigCorps, if there's a stupid requirement, there's usually a reason for the stupid requirement to be there in the first place but getting to the reason might require un-peeling a few org layers to since the people enforcing the policy will not be the people who wrote the policy. A more productive use of time would be to understand the reason for the policy, document out why it doesn't apply to your case and then a…

I wish I could find the article, but I think Joel on Software (?) had something once about bigger companies adding on things like how some people stand by the door turning around and checking their wallet and keys carefully before going out. or some similar analogy.
Post reply on HN