Hacker News Reader

Comment by BugsJustFindMe | Hacker News Reader

I don't care what managers do as long as it's managers doing their own fucking jobs instead of forcing it on everyone below them. Individual engineers shouldn't have to plan objectives, their own or otherwise. That's literally what management is for in the first place.

View on HN

I've worked with people saying that, and others really wanting to influence upwards and for which defining their own objectives was primordial.

To each their own.

Managers are accountable for seeing this is done, but the whole team should be co-responsible for setting goals.

I worked as a software engineer for 12 years before becoming a manager and I can promise you that a team works better when everyone has input on what goals the team commits to and how the team plans to achieve those goals.

You never never never NEVER want to work on a team where your manager decides all of that and then just throws tickets at you. Screw that sideways.

I did understand the comment differently. More that at some level OKRs are not important and the decision that a product/module is needed is everything a good working development team needs to do it’s job.

That has nothing to do about the creation of tickets imo. Ofc the team will find a way to organise ITS OWN WORK.

Exactly. Thanks for this.

I find the same people who think its never worth planning anything are the ones who spend all their time making worthless crap and never get anything done because they think having a goal is beneath them.

My experience is that people that plan all the time are the ones that get nothing done.

Want do get something done? Only plan some of the time!

False dichotomy avoided.

Proper Planning Prevents P*s Poor Performance

I'm an architect (software, not houses). There's a gigantic fucking chasm of difference between architectural design planning and OKRs.

What are your thoughts on some of the trends/buzzwords I find among Architects' communities these days, like "Evolutionary Architecture" or "Just Enough Architecture"?

Note: I don't mean to lower their values by calling them buzzwords, but I truly see a peak of usage in the last 12-24 months, that gets me curious.

Unrelated to any specific subject, I dislike all buzz phrases everywhere everywhen, because they tend to only make sense to people after you explain what they mean. And if you have to explain what they mean, then the phrase wasn't helpful and you can just skip that part and get right to the explanation.

But it especially doesn't help anyone to say pithy business guru shit like "build only what you need". Sure, ok, but that's not the part people really need help with in the first place. Put up a poster that says "make the company more money than you cost it" with a picture of a cute kitten or something and move on with your day.

99% of all software engineers need to be told exactly what functions to implement and where and how to name them and how to organize them in order to not produce something disgustingly oppositional to use and maintainance because they completely lack any aesthetic sense whatsoever for their craft. So management can decide which bridge they want to prioritize safety in and let an architect plan it first before the wrench jockey who doesn't know a cantilever from their elbow starts bolting holes.

I don't know if I answered your question as expected or not.

Here here!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com