And by & large, I’ve taken to call it “DevOps”, because the DevOps community have taken up much of the mantle @KentBeck & the XP community started with. & Kent has independently focused on safe small changes deployed to production. Which is DevOps.
1/
Thinking about this tweetstorm, one of the issues I’ve run into as an engineering leader is what to call the software engineering stuff that’s “agile” given that the Agile Community(tm) has killed the brand.
I might do an \u201cagile\u201d tweet storm to the effect that all the attention is to the least leveraged portions of the value stream. Interest?
— Arien Malec (@amalec) October 26, 2019
And by & large, I’ve taken to call it “DevOps”, because the DevOps community have taken up much of the mantle @KentBeck & the XP community started with. & Kent has independently focused on safe small changes deployed to production. Which is DevOps.
Much of the art here is making changes safe enough to deploy to production continuously. And to do that, we need to design incrementally, test obsessively, take architecture seriously so we decompose dependencies. & we need to automate everything & do it all the time.
It turns out that this is what Kent & @RonJeffries @GeePawHill & many other folks have been nattering on about & being broadly misunderstood. @KentBeck has some brilliant essays (scattered across FB & his site alas) & @GeePawHill has amazing twitter threads on the topic
When you look at *what it takes* to get to the DORA measures that @nicolefv & team write about in Accelerate, the input metrics for the DORA outputs, it’s making small changes safe.
As an engineering leader, I provide training, tools, mentorship, leadership development, vision, etc. to help people learn the skills needed to achieve those output metrics. And most of those skills are what @GeePawHill might call the skills of making.
Unfortunately many of those skills are deeply counterintuitive & much of the work is as much unlearning as learning. For example, there’s an implicit definition of work as writing new code, or even writing code.
Because that’s what engineers love to do, and because there are emotional and sometimes financial incentives to make customer visible functionality, we need to overcorrect sometimes on focusing on the tools of making.
Providing visibility & reward for the people who build the CI/CD tooling or build a deployment pipeline that automates acceptance testing, or figure out how to do AppMesh with Terraform as a module or automates linters & code coverage tools in the pipelines.
Great teams end up spending most of their time building user facing functionality because they build the tools of making and sweat automation, IoT, design, architecture, code quality & test automation. Less successful teams try to write lots of code & get stuck.
More from Twitter
Inside: ADT insider threat; Billionaires think VR stops guillotines; Privacy Without Monopoly; and more!
Archived at: https://t.co/nu1HbReiEX
#Pluralistic
1/
This Wednesday, I'm giving a talk called "Technology, Self-Determination, and the Future of the Future" for the Purdue University CERIAS Program:
https://t.co/po5IivZyr4
2/
ADT insider threat: If you build it they will spy.
https://t.co/kJrmtu8L3S
3/
Self-control isn't merely a matter of eliminating your own weaknesses. Self control is primarily about compensating for those weaknesses. When you go on a diet, you don't just commit yourself to eating well - you also throw away the Oreos so you won't be tempted.
— Cory Doctorow #BLM (@doctorow) February 15, 2021
1/ pic.twitter.com/BCEc7FPkut
Billionaires think VR stops guillotines: TARP with tasps.
https://t.co/MIKwvsICkr
4/
The pandemic has afforded all of us a refresher course on the five stages of grief, a theoretical and controversial framework for describing how people cope with tragedy: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.https://t.co/nqPmjCvyab
— Cory Doctorow #BLM (@doctorow) February 15, 2021
1/ pic.twitter.com/lNk2vvhlNF
Privacy Without Monopoly: Podcasting a reading of the latest EFF whitepaper.
https://t.co/R2sl75y4rb
5/
This week on my podcast, a spoken-word version of "Privacy Without Monopoly: Data Protection and Interoperability," a major new white-paper that Bennett Cyphers and I co-authored for @EFF.https://t.co/oASlJFpz8t
— Cory Doctorow #BLM (@doctorow) February 15, 2021
1/ pic.twitter.com/UnA6fGoA6m
You May Also Like
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.