Patricia AasI can’t. “This is how you simplify things for these silly dev folks who struggle to understand even basic stuff.”
“How to break down large domains”
If you think that there is a Perfect Org Breakdown for all the things I believe you don’t know anything about anything.
“Here is example number four of a team who struggled to keep up with requests after a lot of people started to use, love and depend on the thing the team had built”
“They are struggling because… actually… they are extremely dysfunctional and not actually… extremely successful”
Grrrrr 😡
https://social.vivaldi.net/@Patricia/112491591208560983
Patricia Aas (@[email protected])
I’m sure they TALKED WITH THEIR USERS ☠️ fuck that monolith behavior.
And I sound smart and deep because AND THIS IS AN ACTUAL LITERAL QUOTE: “a stream should flow unimpeded”
I am deceased 💀
https://mastodon.cloud/@grymt/112491761784898442
Gry (@[email protected])
@[email protected] not sure what's worse, but it's useful to have a look so you know when someone have been too inspired https://teamtopologies.com/talks
https://youtu.be/lj71GcOnIW8?si=hb6TUrdKn38MSMBd
Beyond the Spotify Model: using Team Topologies for fast Flow and Organisation Evolution
Simon Frankau@Patricia This thread got me writing a blog post about methodologies and the Spotify Thing - https://arbitrary.name/blog/all/spotify.html .
Then I watched the video and was horrified to find that some fraction of the video was criticism of the Spotify model similar to what I'd blogged, and the rest, while I wouldn't necessarily agree with, was at least comprehensible to me. Obviously management has brain-damaged me.
Yes, the video is wrapped up in word soup.
Do you have any questions I could usefully answer?
@sgf I think you should read the book. The problem isn’t that I don’t agree with the core idea, the problem is there isn’t any coherent core idea. It’s a mishmash of 50 other people’s ideas, that mostly disagree with each other, with no analysis or consistent reasoning. If I was going to try boil the minute “original” idea down it is this:
“Someone else said that microservices are good and monoliths are bad, and this other person said that you should structure your org in the way you want your product to be, and since we have to make micro services (monolith bad ) then we need to make our org behave like a million micro services, except now with people. And also devs are intellectually challenged so make sure they don’t have to think.”
There is zero basis or evidence given that this is even vaguely interesting or right. It is the most intellectually lazy thing I’ve read in years. So… unless you actually read it I think we don’t really have much to discuss.
@Patricia Aaah, ok!
I don't think I'll read the book - I can cope with watching a video for 15 minutes at 2x to be left with a grand feeling of "meh", but reading a whole book while expecting it to be unelucidating is something else!
Your opinion of the book sounds very reasonable - so many methodology books are weirdly dogmatic.
I only meant to respond specifically to the video as you seemed to have video-specific opinions, but if that's only incidental to the book, feel free to ignore!
@Patricia Ooof.
From the way you describe it, the book is very blog-like. "A book is just a series of long blog posts ("chapters") stuck together, right?"
Blog posts often highlight other people's ideas, without much in the way of critical analysis. We rarely expect coherence between posts, or any overall thesis, so much as whatever was on the author's mind at the time.
To me, it sounds like you're describing the print-out of a (not very good) blog!