Live data from Hacker News

The Radiating Programmer

dev.37signals.com

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: The Radiating Programmer

#11
That's a great way of putting it.

I have found that communication strengths and weaknesses can vary, from person to person, and it's usually a tough sell to come up with "one size fits all" solutions.

One example, is that I had an employee who is probably the best engineer that I've ever met, and I've worked with top-shelf people.

But he is "on the spectrum," so his verbal communication tends to be in monosyllables, and can sometimes be a bit inscrutable.

His emails and specs, on the other hand, were absolute marvels of communication.

I had another engineer on the same team, who wasn't quite as brilliant, but he is an awesome "people person." It was always a good idea for me to make the time to chat. His emails tended to sometimes be abrupt, and the information density wasn't that great.

Put him in front of a whiteboard, however, with an audience, and it was amazing.

As their manager, it was incumbent upon me to deal with each as an individual. They would sometimes have clashes, and I was often the peacemaker.

Re: The Radiating Programmer

#12
post #6

I'd rather have a 5-10 minute standup than have to write such an oddly detailed report twice a week on what I "weighted" in on.

RIght, this is just way too much information and detail, and seems designed to look good in front of management rather than to inform team-mates, who presumably know a lot of the details anyway.

Re: The Radiating Programmer

#13
post #5
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you just say “no blockers” you’re doing it wrong in my opinion. This only works when you trust your team members. This means absolutely nobody who can fire me on the spot, not my supervisor, not my skip, not the CEO/CTO/VP should be on the call. No non-technical staff from the above list should have a right to challenge estimates. No product owner can belong to the above list. There should be openness when techn…

> This only works when you trust your team members. This means absolutely nobody who can fire me on the spot, not my supervisor, not my skip, not the CEO/CTO/VP should be on the call. not sure how I'd've ever justified suggesting engineering standup without our engineering manager present

The other side of this is when the EM's presence is actually a negative, so them not turning up means people can relax. If "no blockers" isn't enough, then it's my job to get the information I need without it feeling like a chore. If I have no choice but to run a meeting called "standup" every day, and we're all on the same page already, I'll take "no blockers" and then have a chat for ten minutes over a coffee. Taking it easy once in a while helps everyone feel a little less "cog in the machine".

Re: The Radiating Programmer

#14
Up to a point, I don't care how people communicate, as long as they do. Not everyone will like this (nor like doing it) - so don't force it - but let each person play to their strengths as much as possible. The good thing about this is it lasts. It's great evidence for your work, thought process, developing communication skills. It's easy to share, reproduce, reuse.

I've been in places where this would be a great deterrent for the endless meetings where slightly different groups of people need reassurance about the same things over and over again. Not that they're completely useless, but they're slow, low bandwidth and fatiguing. I wish some of those could have been replaced with a document like this.

Re: The Radiating Programmer

#15
post #10

How about the person who needs the info to do their job should go get it.

Both are useful. But radiating is useful. “I am done on my task anyone need help” is useful. People may not desperately need help that they would go ask, but might appreciate an extra hand.

Re: The Radiating Programmer

#16
post #6

I'd rather have a 5-10 minute standup than have to write such an oddly detailed report twice a week on what I "weighted" in on.

Same. I don't want to have to write OR read those reports, and a quick daily stand-up is far better, IMO, for effective communication.

I think there is an argument here with no right answer. Writing can have such a better signal to noise ratio but it’s harder to write well. Talking is easy but it’s also easy to forget something in the spot or ramble on too much without editing.

Re: The Radiating Programmer

#17
Pushing is fine if people can consume it asynchronously, and if you actually stick with it and don't forget to publish frequent updates.

In my decades as a SWE, there is one way that worked better than all others: having a competent project manager who individually polls team members with weekly, short(5-10min) 1:1s and then takes care of handling schedule updates, resource assignment and unblocking the dev. This allows devs to focus on what they do best with minimal cognitive load.

It requires hiring PMs though, and established managers will bristle at the thought of giving up responsibilities and power to another person. I'm seeing that within my org now. We're slowly learning all the lessons that big companies learned years ago from 70+ years of project management theory, but we're half-assing it because we refuse to accept that PMs and Gantt charts are about the only way for a large org to deliver efficiently and accurately in a mixed hw/sw, multi-team environment.

Re: The Radiating Programmer

#18

That's a great way of putting it. I have found that communication strengths and weaknesses can vary, from person to person, and it's usually a tough sell to come up with "one size fits all" solutions. One example, is that I had an employee who is probably the best engineer that I've ever met, and I've worked with top-shelf people. But he is "on the spectrum," so his verbal communication tends to be in monosyllables,…

Not saying this is you, but I'm surprised how many managers seem unaware of the prevalence of social deficiencies among the highest performing engineers. 20 years ago this was just sort of a given. I have to regularly defend a few highly productive but socially caustic engineers who are absolutely essential to our products. Management would love to get rid of them and the problems they cause without realizing no one else would dedicate the mental resources to the sort of complex, deep problems we're trying to solve.

Re: The Radiating Programmer

#19
post #6

I'd rather have a 5-10 minute standup than have to write such an oddly detailed report twice a week on what I "weighted" in on.

I would probably spend an hour or two just writing something like that. On the surface, I'd agree.

With that said, in my experience, many stand-up formats devolve into some version of "the two most talkative people have a conversation for 30 minutes while everyone else listens". I'd probably get more value out of doing a write-up than sitting through a meeting like that.

It really depends on the health of the stand-ups on the team.

Re: The Radiating Programmer

#20
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This only works when you trust your team members. This means absolutely nobody who can fire me on the spot, not my supervisor, not my skip, not the CEO/CTO/VP should be on the call. not sure how I'd've ever justified suggesting engineering standup without our engineering manager present

It sounds like your dev team isn't very empowered. In the companies I work at we can create whatever ceremony our team deems nessesary as long as we're meeting our metrics.

Not just the dev team but even the "product owner" gets blind sided in "small" and "agile" companies.

The CEO or someone high up the food chain sees a defect and now zomg the sky is falling. It has to be fixed nao, prioritization be damned. That's what I meant by nobody from the above list can be a product owner. The whole point of having sprints is so things can't be added to a sprint mid-sprint. Maybe there are extenuating circumstances but they should a. really be extenuating circumstances and b. should come through the (clearly nominal) product owner.

Post reply on HN