Thread by @johncutlefish

I've been pondering fixed length variable scope efforts.

It strikes me that w/o context they can seem super manipulative. Let me explain.

"Feel free to reduce scope" is fine. But it feels shitty to do bad work. "And then what?" is the question. "Leave it that way?"
(1/n)

"It is just a deadline by another name." Well no, but...

It isn't (or shouldn't be) but it sure SEEMS like one. It sure seems like someone wants "as much as possible by date X".

"It isn't variable scope to reach a goal. It is maximal scope in fixed time."
(2/n)

"We should embrace healthy forcing functions!"

Well yes. Sure. But define healthy. Define "forcing function" (aside, "enabling constraint" is better).

Why? Why should we? What is in it for me?

(PS, there's a lot in it for anyone, but you have to see it to believe it)
(3/n)

Now consider how many things in regular life are "variable scope / fixed length". There's a day you'll need to do something (e.g. leave for your vacation, have a wedding). You can plan, but can't do endless planning. That is FLVS.

And it can be stressful!
(4/n)

All this to say that -- reflecting -- FLVS is one of those things people (me included) talk about a ton. And my guess is that it isn't landing most of the time...until...people see the subtleties. Until you create a safe environment. Until you discuss doing good work.
(5/end)