Hacker News Reader

I tend to agree, but there are major exceptions in open source software:

- Guido van Rossum wrote the first line of Python in 1989 or so (started)

- He released the first version on Useset pretty quickly ("finished" the MVP)

- He worked on himself for four years or so (maintaining, improving)

- Then other people started contributing for 25 years or so (leading)

So I would say he's able to do all 3 things, plus lead the team, which is even harder.

I think you can also say the same about Linus Torvalds, probably the leaders of similar projects like Ruby, Perl, Tcl, Richard Hipp of sqlite, etc. (without much of the leading part, since sqlite is relatively closed to contribution.)

One exception might be Stallman. Although Stallman's achievements are great, what I learned from reading his autobiography is that he started with existing pieces of code for GCC and Emacs.

In other words, he tries NOT to start from scratch. That's probably what enabled him to be productive enough to start so many projects simultaneously.

He also tends to be pretty good about handing over maintainership. That is, he is relatively good at recruitment to the cause.

Anyway, I guess this is why we hold such people in high regard! Because they're able to do things that most people cannot do -- that would normally take huge teams of people and/or entire companies.

And perhaps these are the exceptions that prove the rule, being that they are such remarkable cases.

He also is not a manager at Dropbox. He is the highest level IC there and has no desire to lead a team.

And then you got the SQLite guy who did everything for many years. A true outlier, though.

stop starting and start finishing

for normal people, yes it might be easier to have a part in something that's bigger than them.

But some really great projects had someone that owned it start to finish

I think Simon Wardley's concept of Pioneers, Settlers and Town Planners matches nicely with what you're saying about different types of people: https://blog.gardeviance.org/2015/03/on-pioneers-settlers-to...

I've noticed the same three categories discussed in two "go west" novels -- Steinbeck's East of Eden (1952) and Kesey's Sometimes a Great Notion (1962). It's interesting, and a bit jarring, to see the MBA translation of what, to me, existed as a literary aside.

> Not every starter is a finisher, and not every finisher is a starter, and not every finisher is a good maintainer, either. They're different things.

This is the most true thing I've read in a while. It takes a lot of thoughts I've been having lately and wraps them in a concise package. Thank you! This is gonna stick with me for a while.

I agree, that was a fantastic comment.

I love File>New'ing a project. A blank canvas inspires me and I can see the possibilities, but my coworker can't imagine anything yet is able to improve greatly on extant concepts. And yet another friend can do neither, but is great at being disciplined and pruning/maintaining a codebase.

> Not every starter is a finisher, and not every finisher is a starter, and not every finisher is a good maintainer, either. They're different things.

Seeing the number of responses in agreement is great, but then I think a bit and have a number of feelings about the fact that this needs to be pointed out. Isn't this obvious from basic psychology, management, sports, life experience, etc.?

It's unusual to find someone who has all elements in balance. They might seem in balance, but often you can't see how productive people really are in lots of cases. They may seem like they can churn out quality personal projects ad nauseum, but you don't know what's painful, what takes a disproportionate amount of time, what needed to redone, what drove anxiety, and many other things.

For the people who seem to have this balance, they may push through extreme toil, create undesirable consequences for others, etc. My advice would be to consider whether you should endeavour to be a "ruthless executor" because that might not be what you should do. Perhaps the OP should actually be spending time reading, taking photos, or some other activity to generate energy to drive forward projects that are truly important.

I'd say not everything worth starting is worth finishing. Perhaps the discovery of starting, doing a bit, is really what you want.

This is an interesting take, but I think you can take it too far. Kind of like if a kid gives up on math as soon as it becomes difficult and decides "I'm not good at math". Skills can be learned. Discipline can be developed. But yeah if you put in the effort to learn how to finish and are consistently miserable, maybe stop.

> I'm convinced that almost nobody is good at the whole cycle of creating/maintaining something.

Part of it is your character and personality. But your environment and your experience have a major weight.

Same applies for being a finisher.

In reality, it is not just being a starter and a finisher. A lot of other variables are involved. all sort of soft and hard skills will define your success and quality of your work. And you can arguably say almost nobody has all of them.

Super good post. Long ago I realized that I'm a starter and not a finisher, yet I often end up in SRE type roles that are all about finishing and I struggle to have any motivation to work on things that just quite frankly bore me to death.

Ideally, You need to team up with a finisher that keeps your focus on your work and perhaps since most of the finishers are introvert, you need a fact-based extrovert driver who is dominant to push you both forward.

Thanks for this gem. Many +1s for you but it's not easy to know what you are good at. Even you know then roadmap isn't clear.

This was something I really needed to see.... Thanks to both the OP as well as you Haul4ss.

Agreed. But how do you pass over a product once you created it and it's working ?

Upvote a million times!

Well said!

+1000