1. 40
  1.  

  2. 6

    I’ve always enjoyed Rachel’s writing style, but I can’t put my finger on what I like about it.

    Maybe part of it is having the perfect amount of cynicism to be entertaining, but not depressing. Here’s another classic story of company dysfunction: https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2011/07/14/overheating/

    1. 3

      This feels very similar to my experiences at a large software company. A million teams with vast, overlapping and frequently changing areas of ownership, resulting in nobody having the time to spend on any project.

      1. 2

        Currently work at a BigCo, can attest to this. If this job was in-person I would have gone insane. But since it’s remote, it’s pretty nice.

        This is the realest thing I’ve ever read: https://pastebin.com/raw/hNL7WG2A

        1. 2

          The real question here is, I feel, why did the writer this not do it on their own and never bothered anyone?

          Like, not calling her lazy or anything, but why wasn’t there an incentive for him to just get it done on his own? Since it’s obviously possible.

          Indeed, getting anything “simple” to the level of “management handled issue” will by default add a standard amount of overhead (e.g. 10 mins in a startup, 1hr in round B, few weeks in a megacorp). But that’s just the nature of consensus making in large orgs… however a lot of things can be resolved exactly by not having to get them to management, by just doing them yourself (or yourself + a group of friends that don’t mind asking for help)

          1. 10

            First, I believe the “guy” writing at the “Rachel by the Bay” blog is a woman.

            Second, they did write an initial dashboard by themselves, but then a “dashboard team” came along and insisted they’ll provide said dashboard—and then promptly decided they had more important things to do for 5 months. Here’s paragraph 3 and 4 of the post:

            January 1: we put up a terrible hack: a shell script that runs a Python script that talks to the service to get the status and then dumps out raw HTML to a file in someone’s public_html path.

            January 29, early: there’s this team that nominally owns dashboards, and they got wind of us wanting a dashboard. They want to be the ones to do it, so we meet with them to convey the request. We make a mockup of the list and the eventual big red button to give them some idea of what it should look like.

            1. 3

              First, I believe the “guy” writing at the “Rachel by the Bay” blog is a woman.

              Ups, edited

              Second, they did write an initial dashboard by themselves, but then a “dashboard team” came along and insisted they’ll provide said dashboard—and then promptly decided they had more important things to do for 5 months. Here’s paragraph 3 and 4 of the post:

              What I was saying here was that, i.e. “WHY IS THERE a dashboard team!?” that seems like the fundamental question to tackle here. Why does the company not provide incentives to just leave the stupid python script up, or get the devs to spend the few days they did writing the dashboard without implicating a whole other department.

              I think the author might also think the same thing here, I was trying to paraphrase my takeaway, not criticize.

              1. 12

                “WHY IS THERE a dashboard team!?” that seems like the fundamental question to tackle here.

                I can answer this question as if it was the BigCorp for which I’m currently working. Please take my answer with a grain of salt, as this is most likely biased by my “grunt” point of view.

                1. Up high, the CEO most likely decided they wanted to reduce cost on the technology.
                2. They gave this task to a Senior VP. This senior VP discussed with a VP and a few directors, and they came up with one of the conclusions that the technology is too fragmented across the organisation, and too many people solve the same problems.
                3. The task got split up into smaller chunk “consolidate server technology”, “consolidate dashboard technology”, etc. At some point, some director got assigned the objective to “consolidate the dashboard technology”
                4. This director within their budget created a “dashboard team”
                5. Now you have a team which sole purpose is consolidate the dashboards, their performance is measured every quarter in terms of: how many dashboard were consolidated, and how many new dashboards are created by this consolidation team.
                6. This team now hunts down anybody who is using a dashboard or creating a new one, the team existence depends on it. (If they don’t perform well they will get reassigned, and members will loose the opportunity to be promoted quickly, and/or face the possibility to made redundant.)
            2. 5

              Her name is Rachel and she is not a guy. If you want to use gendered language you should do your research on not jump to conclusions. The name is even visible in the domain.

              1. 2

                Gendering someone based on a personal name that you found in the domain name of the site where you found an article sounds like a lot of making assumptions to me. And in the glorious twenty-first century, anyone and everyone is free to be a “guy”, just like in the 90s we were all dudes.