Untitled topic

Downwote it, quick. I want this thing buried. It hurts me bad.

Amusing at the very least, though I do feel some empathy with the sentiments expressed as well. I think the real trouble is its very hard to distil the act of programming into abstract 'methodologies' (I hate the [ab]use of that word) that are not language and technology specific.

I remember when pg asked for Erlang submissions... it didn't end well. The entire front page was Erlang and the links just kept coming.

It's about yak shaving as applied to process. (Assuming you read between the lines, as edw519 suggested.)

Yak shaving means getting deep into a series of tasks that are apparently unrelated to your final goal, but which logically follow from it: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/03/dont_shave_t...

When you're shaving a yak, it might be a productive step whose necessity is not apparent until you analyze the problem. However, the term is usually employed when you feel logically compelled to do something, but your intuition tells you that it isn't necessary. You trust your intuition more, but you feel compelled to shave the yak anyway because there's a logically compelling argument for shaving the yak, and you can't justify not shaving the yak.

Yak shaving as applied to process means things like the Dilbertesque meeting to define the goals for choosing the committee to comment on the draft of the process to change the process. Logically, if you believe in the value of process, changing your process is an important thing and can't be done without process. Process requires buy-in, so you need a public draft of the process before it can be adopted. Obviously, the comments of random stakeholders won't automatically assemble themselves into coherent feedback, so you need a committee of representatives from different process stakeholders to compile the feedback. Choosing the committee is a politically sensitive task, so it should be done transparently, and the choices must be justified. So let's get together to define objective goals for choosing the committee members to head off any hard feelings.

Somewhere that chain of logic must be interrupted. No, we don't need any meetings, we don't need any documentation of goals, we don't need a list of stakeholders, and we don't need to produce a public draft for review. We can just do it and it will be fine. Maybe that comes at the top level -- we don't need a process to change the process -- or maybe you stop at a lower level -- okay, we need a documented process to change the process, but we don't need to publish a formal draft and get feedback.

You can't logically justify doing something without any process. You can always imagine things that can go wrong, and you can always imagine more layers of process to prevent those things from going wrong. You could justify an absence of process by performing an evaluation of the risks involved in proceeding without process, but that itself would be a layer of process.

At some point you have to stop trying to mitigate risk and JUST DO IT. At that point it may be helpful to pretend you're Jules from Pulp Fiction and toss around a few "motherfuckers" so you feel bad-ass enough to face the awesome responsibility of, say, choosing a meeting room without consulting a committee and without even articulating a reason for not consulting a committee. That last part is what makes it completely bad-ass, because you aren't even pretending to be responsible. You don't give a FUCK. You're going to choose that motherfucking meeting room for that motherfucking meeting, and you aren't going to explain how, and any motherfucker who wants you to explain how you chose that motherfucking meeting room can talk to your motherfucking balls, and if he can't pull his head out of his motherfucking asshole to find them you will stick them in there so he can chat with them at his motherfucking leisure.

Potty mouth!