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

How GitHub No Longer Works

zachholman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 139 posts

Re: How GitHub No Longer Works

#101

Post by PeterisP »

ben_straub wrote: post #82
techscruggs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your deterministic system for determining salary?

Note that I didn't say salary, I said raises. ;) Every other job I've had uses some sort of stressful review as part of the salary process. You get a good review, your raise is bigger; bad review, smaller raise. This seems like it works, but it actually doesn't. What's the goal of a review? To provide feedback. Shouldn't you be interested in feedback so you can get better, not just so you can get paid more? If so, sh…

The main goal of raises isn't cost of living adjustments, but as a part of career progression.

If you're staying in a stable role and productivity, then you need COLA.

If you're improving, in time you become significantly more valuable both to the company and to outside market, so you deserve much larger compensation than back in the years when you were a fresh-out-of college newbie.

Re: How GitHub No Longer Works

#102

Post by namuol »

strumptrumpet wrote: post #60
techpeace wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big deal about GitHub is that they were in large part responsible for the current Open Source Renaissance we currently find ourselves in. Do you remember the world before? Where you would hunt for someone's private SVN repo on their personal site and email them patches, only to hope that something comes of your effort? Compare that with the world of today, where, if I'm using GitHub, I can submit a fix to a proje…

Renaissance? Open source has never been less healthy. All the previous social constructs around properly documenting, testing, and releasing stable versions of your code have been swept away. Instead we're faced with the constant churn of semi-functional code, users working in silos and then showing up with patches well after it's too late to give them direction, animated GIFs instead of careful engineering discussio…

Since when were bureaucratized quality standards part of Open Source?

---

"GitHub optimized being lazy" -- translation: GitHub enabled more people to get involved with Open Source.

There are no-fewer quality-obsessed developers participating in the community as a result of GitHub. There are, however, a lot more people involved, and a lot more code being "churned". The suggestion that the community is suffering as a result is a dubious claim that you offer no real evidence for.

It sounds to me like you miss the "good old days" when the club was more exclusive.

Re: How GitHub No Longer Works

#103

Post by XODsQToxwi1eOy8 »

namuol wrote: post #100
yapcguy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the big deal about Github? Too much hype. Whenever you hear about the number of repos, most of them are just forks. In fact, I've created many by accident because Github changed their UI so clicking the icon instantly starts a fork instead of asking for confirmation first. I guess it's good for bumping the numbers up when getting private equity investors interested (cynical, I know). Security wise, meh. Why wo…

You're misunderstanding what "problem" GitHub is trying to solve. Remember their slogan? "Social Coding." No other platform out there has the userbase, let alone the sheer usability of GitHub. There's a reason GitHub fanboys exist: it's a service that's delightful to use.

Let me tell you about this great new invention called the internet! Even though it is still pretty new, it does actually have a quite large userbase!

I guess, soon people will forget that you can call other people without a conference service, and praise some conference service for its huge user base.

Re: How GitHub No Longer Works

#104

Post by M2Ys4U »

PeterisP wrote: post #101
ben_straub wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that I didn't say salary, I said raises. ;) Every other job I've had uses some sort of stressful review as part of the salary process. You get a good review, your raise is bigger; bad review, smaller raise. This seems like it works, but it actually doesn't. What's the goal of a review? To provide feedback. Shouldn't you be interested in feedback so you can get better, not just so you can get paid more? If so, sh…

The main goal of raises isn't cost of living adjustments, but as a part of career progression. If you're staying in a stable role and productivity, then you need COLA. If you're improving, in time you become significantly more valuable both to the company and to outside market, so you deserve much larger compensation than back in the years when you were a fresh-out-of college newbie.

I don't think his reply runs contrary to your post, if you include the last part of that sentence:

> To keep you from being effectively paid less (because the cost of living keeps going up), and to make sure you feel satisfied with how much money you're making.

Re: How GitHub No Longer Works

#105

Post by namuol »

XODsQToxwi1eOy8 wrote: post #103
namuol wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding what "problem" GitHub is trying to solve. Remember their slogan? "Social Coding." No other platform out there has the userbase, let alone the sheer usability of GitHub. There's a reason GitHub fanboys exist: it's a service that's delightful to use.

Let me tell you about this great new invention called the internet! Even though it is still pretty new, it does actually have a quite large userbase! I guess, soon people will forget that you can call other people without a conference service, and praise some conference service for its huge user base.

I can't even tell what you're being sarcastic about.

Re: How GitHub No Longer Works

#106

Post by jbarnette »

dingaling wrote: post #88
jbarnette wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We use PRP in any situation where someone explicitly takes responsibility for an outcome, no matter whether the outcome is some software or a clean office or an accurate tax return.

I'm intrigued as to what happens when no-one 'takes responsibility' for a non-optional task. Like a compliance issue, or that tax return. Who assigns the shit task to whom?

There is no such thing as a shit task.

Added: That's a little too glib, sorry. Let me try again: From my perspective, if there's something that needs to be done at GitHub there are a few possibilities:

1. It needs to be done and it's getting done,

2. It needs to be done and it's not getting done, or

3. It's bullshit.

Cases of #3 become obvious pretty quickly. The best evidence: Searching for ways to make someone do it because nobody stepped up.

Cases of #2 can happen for a bunch of different reasons, but malice, apathy, laziness, or incompetence are the least likely ones. The most likely: Not enough hours in the day or not enough people with the knowledge necessary to be worried. No matter the reason for #2, someone at GitHub who is worried will generally try to get others to share their priorities, by persuasion, by hiring, or by prototyping.

Or occasionally by just jumping up and down and wailing.

Re: How GitHub No Longer Works

#107

Post by XODsQToxwi1eOy8 »

namuol wrote: post #105
XODsQToxwi1eOy8 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me tell you about this great new invention called the internet! Even though it is still pretty new, it does actually have a quite large userbase! I guess, soon people will forget that you can call other people without a conference service, and praise some conference service for its huge user base.

I can't even tell what you're being sarcastic about.

Well, git is a distributed VCS, so all you need in order to use it socially is the Internet. Just publish your fork on your machine (or just anywhere on the net) and anyone else connected to the Internet can pull it, github is simply superfluous for that, the Internet already connects everyone to everyone.

Re: How GitHub No Longer Works

#108

Post by lttlrck »

benihana wrote: post #81
strumptrumpet wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renaissance? Open source has never been less healthy. All the previous social constructs around properly documenting, testing, and releasing stable versions of your code have been swept away. Instead we're faced with the constant churn of semi-functional code, users working in silos and then showing up with patches well after it's too late to give them direction, animated GIFs instead of careful engineering discussio…

>Github optimized being lazy, and this was appealing, and in doing so they broke most of the technical and social structure that held together open source's ability to produce reliable, stable, well-documented software. And yet, here we are, years after Github optimized being lazy and broke most of the technical and social structure of open source, and we still have hundreds of thousands of usable and awesome open so…

Where did that last paragraph come from? Sheesh.

Re: How GitHub No Longer Works

#109

Post by amirmc »

XODsQToxwi1eOy8 wrote: post #107
namuol wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't even tell what you're being sarcastic about.

Well, git is a distributed VCS, so all you need in order to use it socially is the Internet. Just publish your fork on your machine (or just anywhere on the net) and anyone else connected to the Internet can pull it, github is simply superfluous for that, the Internet already connects everyone to everyone.

That's akin to saying you're part of a 'social network' by virtue of having your own homepage. Sure, everyone can come to your site to see your updates/pics/etc but it's not a fair comparison to the things Facebook/twitter/G+ provide.

Re: How GitHub No Longer Works

#110

Post by lttlrck »

ben_straub wrote: post #68
canistr wrote: post #43

I'm always skeptical when companies say they have "no managers" and are a completely flat organization with 100+ employees. I don't pretend to fully understand organizational theory, but I take it that at some point, there will be someone doing the "management" work. Whether that's someone with the title of ninja/hacker/product guy/project manager/director/CEO/BDFL

(Disclaimer: Hubber.) Here's the thing about "management work": it turns out you don't necessarily need management to do it. Setting priorities? This can be done through consensus. Making sure schedules are met? Don't have schedules. (1) Hiring? Have everybody do it. Giving out raises? Set up a deterministic system and forget about it. Giving feedback? Everybody can do this. Running meetings? Don't have meetings. Com…

Works well until sh*t hits the fan and you need to cull teams or have a very angry customer. The buck really does need to stop somewhere, it cannot be distributed.
Post reply on HN