![]() ![]() My theory on my theory is that this is also why so many people encourage others to join in their favored cargo cult practice (be it software development or anything else). Where they explicitly talk about how they intentionally setup this interaction to showcase how certain characters took the rules too seriously and which ones didn't take them seriously enough. I didn't think much of this until I watched the director commentary. The down side is that they literally don't understand when they're in a scenario where it will lead to failure. The plus side is that they're able to inherit successful methodologies that have survived over time without having to do all the hard work themselves. But they have successfully copied success up till now. They don't really know what they're doing when you consider what's going on inside their skull. My own theory with "Right Way Guys" is that some people have been able to find a lot of success by leveraging the knowledge that's stored in the hivemind of society. And it doesn't matter that their income from this side business is inconsequential. It doesn't matter that this is a $50 router. It doesn't matter that they all know each other so well that they're finishing each other's sentences. Their side business apparently has very strict rules about what words they need to use for voting on decisions. The other response with "I need an 'aye'". ![]() One character says 'yes' to buying the new router. Clearly they're basically reading each other's minds because of how well they know each other and how much time they spend with each other.īut then comes the 'punchline'. " : "yes" "well, how about resetting the. The suggestions are all half spoken before being answered: "Did you try the. They have an impromptu meeting where one of the characters gives suggestions on how they could try to fix the existing router. They need to buy a $50 router because their existing one is broken. Something I missed at first was the significance of an event that happens early in the movie. Two of them later invent a sci-fi box and then dramatic shenanigans ensue. In the movie Primer, a group of four friends start a small computer business on the side. I would argue complete documentation of the meaningful parts of the project is not bike-shedding. IMO, a good leader knows how to strike a balance between the “Right Way” and avoiding the pitfalls of “Bike-shedding”. This usually occurs because these trivial aspects are easier to understand and discuss, especially for junior devs, which leads to increased involvement on minor details while the more meaningful parts of a project (which might be more challenging to address), are overlooked or given less attention. They’re emphasizing minor, arguably unnecessary details rather than the core functionality or purpose of the project. ![]() ![]() In your case, their focus on separate VMs for QA/Production, systemd deployments, templating system for a few strings, and an ORM for a few SQL queries, especially for a project with a limited user base (10 people) really exemplifies Bike-shedding. But the committee spends all their time discussing the color of the bike shed that they want built nearby. Imagine a committee commissioned to approve plans for a Nuclear Power Plant. This means giving a disproportionate amount of attention or importance to the trivial details while neglecting or giving less attention to the significant issues. The situation you described doesn’t sound like “Right Way Guys”. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |