Also stuck in this endless loop.
697 karma · joined September 5, 2007
https://twitter.com/kurt
They show up in the morning and say "what was I working on yesterday?" "what else do we have to do in this sprint?" "Assign task XYZ to Devin.ai and put Story ABC into the started state and assign it to me"
It's been unexpected and surprising to me how fast the tools that we've used for years have become tools that are only looked at occasionally for some of the teams that are really leaning in here.
Each subagent is tied to and evaluated against different models (mostly Claude currently), so we can keep improving and adding to them independently.
We're also team centric by default, so if you want to see how someone on your team worked through coming up with a spec you can always see all of the work behind it. We're working on a testing and training framework that would apply your standards company-wide (coming soon).
Finally, we bill on interactions, so it's easy to try out and if you and your team are finding it useful and getting value from it then you pay us, if you don't then you don't. Hopefully this best aligns us to keep improving things and making it better for everyone, instead of just billing you by the seat, regardless of how much people use it.
We estimate that it conservatively saved us about 100 hours of alignment in April alone, and it's getting better all of the time.
Here for questions/comments if anyone has them.
Conversations about why it's bad for developers or product managers or attempts to show them how to get the same value in another way often fall on deaf ears (or don't happen at all) because it's the only way that they know how to work.
One of the key indicators that this is happening is when people start saying things like "this can't do Agile because it doesn't have PET_FEATURE"
Jira isn't just software, it's a way of working that's become the de facto standard, and it's hard to get out of that box for a lot of people.
It is until you hit the wall on it and then you end up with a lot of tough tradeoffs.
Even if people do have the same model then the terms are often different, depending on how you learned to do things. (Example: What is the "correct" number of levels of tasks -> subtasks and what should each layer be called, i.e "Epics -> Stories -> Tasks")
We've been building out Shortcut (https://shortcut.com/) for several years now it's not uncommon for new leadership (new VP of Eng or VP of Product) to show up in a large organization (100+ people in eng and product) and decide that whatever problems the org is having can be solved by moving to Jira and forcing everyone into a new mental model around how they're building things.
(Side note: We're tracking the rate of success of people who make this decision and how long they last in the org, and it's [perhaps unsurprisingly] not great.)
Anyone here paying for it and feel like they're getting their money worth?
We have alerts set up that fire if the p50 or p95 of certain actions spike and we treat it as a bug if things are headed in the wrong direction.
We still see a lot of random cases of things being slower though (shakes fist at random browser plugin upgrades).
It's a hard problems, but if you don't design (and monitor) for this from the beginning things are going to slow down over time as you scale to hundreds of thousands of users.
I've always seen Jira as the "manager's tool" and we're trying to make Clubhouse the "developer's tool."
It's a simple decision that I think (and I'm obviously biased) has had some profound effects on the way we've built Clubhouse.
I feel like, as an industry, we should be moving beyond that at some point.
Ticket update overhead sucks.
[1] https://clubhouse.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/207540323-Us...
Unfortunately, most of the tools out there don't scale well, so most teams reach the point where Jira is the only reasonable choice.
(Full disclosure, building https://clubhouse.io address this problem.)
275 sq. ft. with "a half refrigerator, 2 built-in electric burners, and a microwave oven"
They've sold 36 million PS4s.
An Oculus needs a Nvidia GTX 970 or better graphics card (which goes for $300+ on it's own). I highly doubt that 36 million+ people have purchased one of those (or would, especially on top of the $599 that it costs for the Rift itself).
We have some of the building blocks in place for bigger teams, but it's not a priority right now.
Nothing planned yet, but if there's enough interest we'll consider it.
Here's a blog post that one of our users wrote a few months ago that covers some of the same ground: https://medium.com/humans-in-space/clubhouse-is-the-best-pro...
PT uses tiered pricing, so if you have 16 people we're only $10 more a month than PT and at 26 people we're $40 less expensive each month.
Here's a reference to most of the same concepts on the Jira site, for instance: https://www.atlassian.com/agile/delivery-vehicles/
(I've worked with Pivotal on projects in the past and I worked at Thoughtworks for a while, so we're definitely using language that should be familiar to users that are familiar with the flavor of "agile" promoted by those companies.)
Some of our users have extra steps in their workflow (for example, "waiting for app store review") that some of the project teams hide in their workspace (each column in the workflow can be hidden by an individual user).
In the future we might support different "departments" within an organization to allow for multiple ways of working, but it's not at the top of the list of things to do currently.
We do have a full API though (https://clubhouse.io/api/) so it probably wouldn't take much effort to build something for your issue tracker of choice, which some of our users have already done.