Communication pathways are sooo hard to get right, and inspire such frothing, unreasonable rage when they get it wrong.
The last time I used jira was well over a decade ago, and I thought it was impenetrable spaghetti at the time. I can't imagine it's gotten any simpler...
But it's kind of an impossible problem, of course it's going to turn into feature soup when you've been making bank on enterprise for this long.
Every team starts out trying to replicate and "improve" on how a squintillion people and teams interoperate,
but each of the teams they connect have evolved their own communication pathways.
What could be more fascist and enraging than being forced to fit your communication into foreign pathways that don't fit how you actually interact or work? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Naturally, there are knobs and options to force jira to do your bidding. (There are probably at least ten people in the world who know them, too.)
That may buy you a respite. But these pathways are always shifting and adapting to changes in the system, so it won't last long 🙃
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yeah. This gets to a weakness of engineering leveling systems. We rightly encourage high level engineers to seek out work that is a challenge at their level...
But there isn't always enough of that highly difficult or tech lead work to go around.
When level-appropriate work comprises a lot of your performance review, you get something very dangerous: roving bands of skilled, restless engineers competing for vanity projects and systems that should never, ever have been built, but which you now have to maintain. 😬
One way to prevent this is to *not* over hire, especially very senior engineers. Hire juniors and mid-levels with room to grow.
Most engineering work is not rocket science, and mid levels in particular are often the most prolific and productive engineers you have.
I was just editing the o11y book chapter on build vs buy and ROI, and this sentence jumped out at me:
"High-performing organizations use great tools."
It's true, right? Behold all the FAANG engineers who leave their cushy perches and are shocked by the amount of tooling they had come to take for granted. It's almost like having to learn to engineer all over again
Big companies know how critical good tooling is, and pay for it.
I'm going to say two very contradictory things, both of which are true:
1) Tools are getting better and better, and you should try to keep up
2) Switching tooling is hard, and you should only do it when the gain is ~an order of magnitude better than what you've got.
You don't owe it to your employer to fix all the ways they are fucked up. Before going to battle, ask yourself:
* how much power do I have here?
* is the problem within my domain of responsibility or influence?
* who are my allies?
* do I have a reasonable chance of success?
and also: are they worth it? Is your employer fundamentally worth you staying and fighting? Is their product a net good for the world? Are your leaders decent, ethical people who care a lot?
If so, sure, pick some battles. See what happens. ☺️
Ah! This is a very good point. Good recruiters are outnumbered by bad ones, which are indistinguishable from spam. And yes, the more you put out the more you'll get.
Here we are, now going on the fourth straight month of headlines all about how a record number of people are quitting their jobs.
There's a lot of pain behind that statistic, but also a strident, activated edge to labor that feels unlike anything seen in my lifetime.
I am *all for* more people quitting their jobs. I am *all for* employers needing to compete for employees by treating them better, increasing their wages, and offering more flexibility and support.
Most people in our industry stay at jobs they don't love, far too long.
So here's a piece of advice that I find myself giving over and over again, to senior folks who are daunted by the prospect of having to go out and search for the right role, the right team, the right company ... it's like looking for a needle in a haystack, right? 😰
This is 100% true. What always jumps out at me is that there's always "the tracing expert(s)" that everybody goes to for help on the rare occasions when they need a trace. Fluency rarely transcends the few to reach the many.
I don't think it's this so much as it is that ... tracing is *inherently* a niche use case. A tracing-first approach to observability turns the world on its head for no good reason.
What most people want is the ability to slice and dice their requests,