Name: Anonymous 2018-07-11 10:06
why is it that rammers of prog always complain about overcomplicated and wasteful bureaucracy, and when they have an opportuniyu to do something about it inevitably come up with something similarly overcomplicated and wasteful?
take agile, for example. agile was supposed to set us free from all the meetings, charts and table of traditional project management, and yet it resulted in a baroque project management structure of daily stand-ups, bi-weekly planning meetings, kanban boards, backlogs, metrics, TDD, pairing, code reviews and other shit? there's so much bloat and ceremony around those supposedly lightweight approaches that it's hard to seriously consider them as a more dynamic alternative to a traditional approach.
but I'm not just going to shit on agile and other silly ideas from the 90s. take some silly ideas from recent years. I found out that some bydlo has recently invented an automated of assigning contractors to their're are tasks, and he claims that it's a no-bullshit approach where you work as much as you want and don't waste your're are time on anything other than code. great, let's check it out:
https://www.zerocracy.com/policy.html
how great, you can just code! but you just need to find a mentor, understand the reputation system and its relation to pay (as well as 'boost factors', hourly rates, speed bonuses, debts, wallets, fees, micro-vesting), student/mentor status, chatbot commands (lol """""AI"""""), projects, sandbox projects, election rules, what gives cash and what gives points, auto-vacations, project roles, shithub, slack and telegram.
how the fuck is it better than... anything, really? and also, why do people do this? are bureaucracies inevitable? or is the problem with adherence to methodologies: programmers overcomplicate things by thinking of rules for every possible case, even if it would actually be better solved and easier to understand with a simple ad-hoc decision by the manager?
take agile, for example. agile was supposed to set us free from all the meetings, charts and table of traditional project management, and yet it resulted in a baroque project management structure of daily stand-ups, bi-weekly planning meetings, kanban boards, backlogs, metrics, TDD, pairing, code reviews and other shit? there's so much bloat and ceremony around those supposedly lightweight approaches that it's hard to seriously consider them as a more dynamic alternative to a traditional approach.
but I'm not just going to shit on agile and other silly ideas from the 90s. take some silly ideas from recent years. I found out that some bydlo has recently invented an automated of assigning contractors to their're are tasks, and he claims that it's a no-bullshit approach where you work as much as you want and don't waste your're are time on anything other than code. great, let's check it out:
https://www.zerocracy.com/policy.html
how great, you can just code! but you just need to find a mentor, understand the reputation system and its relation to pay (as well as 'boost factors', hourly rates, speed bonuses, debts, wallets, fees, micro-vesting), student/mentor status, chatbot commands (lol """""AI"""""), projects, sandbox projects, election rules, what gives cash and what gives points, auto-vacations, project roles, shithub, slack and telegram.
how the fuck is it better than... anything, really? and also, why do people do this? are bureaucracies inevitable? or is the problem with adherence to methodologies: programmers overcomplicate things by thinking of rules for every possible case, even if it would actually be better solved and easier to understand with a simple ad-hoc decision by the manager?