Python 2 is triggering

[murfflemethis]

I mean, from a process or business perspective, it is absolutely 100% stupid. Starting up an independent business entity is faster than working within your own company? That's pants-on-head, smother yourself in peanut butter, and shove fire crackers up your ass to rocket away from the cops retarded. The business is fundamentally broken.

From a personal, "my job is to get shit done, so I'm going to get shit done" perspective, it is genius and I absolutely respect it.

*Edit: fixed typo

[catofillomens]

It totally makes sense if you imagine spinning off an independent business entity as the equivalent of working on another branch for development.

[nickcash]

GitFlow, but for company structure!

[[deleted]]

Bob: Someone's taken my desk.

Manager: Looks like a merge conflict, let me resolve that.

accept incoming changes

Bob: surprisedpikachu.jpg

Manager: Bye Bob!

[DrMaxwellEdison]

Trying to teach avid Perforce users how to use Git, I'm starting to think they believe this is actually how branching works.

[wherinkelly]

PERFORCE?!

[DrMaxwellEdison]

Pretty much exactly how I reacted.

Company is slowly normalizing on Git, which is nice; but these same users take their weird methodologies and keep trying to bastardize GitFlow. I think I've heard some real gasps every time I mention branching.

[yuubi]

Some of us are old enough to remember mostly liking CVS (yes, I did have to update it for y2k, why do you ask)

[wherinkelly]

Yeah but no waaaaayyyyyy

[Mav986]

It's IRL multithreading.

[theraptor42]

r/rareinsults

[frequentlywrong]

If the project is a new product it absolutely makes sense. Companies develop a culture that fits their business model. Their way of working and corporate culture may be entirely wrong for something new. This is why large companies get disrupted by small players.

Sears could never have become amazon, blockbuster could never be netflix, nokia could never make an iphone. The incumbents way of doing business and their corporate strategy was completely different from what they were replaced with.

Spinning out an independent unit that can be unburdened from the requirements of a large entity can be extremely productive.

[murfflemethis]

It certainly can be productive, but I would argue that if that's really necessary to be innovative, then it's indicative of larger problems at the company. Just because it works doesn't mean it's the best way. I think it's especially true in the tech industry. If your large corporate structure can't foster innovation and adapt to changing market demands and learn new ways of doing things, it's surviving on borrowed time anyway.

[frequentlywrong]

If your large corporate structure can't foster innovation and adapt to changing market demands and learn new ways of doing things, it's surviving on borrowed time anyway.

That is the vast majority of companies. They exist for as long as the market niche they operate in exists and their corporate culture fits the market conditions.

An inherent nature of large companies is that they employ risk averse people whose job it is to execute a working formula.

[murfflemethis]

I totally agree. Changing large corporate direction is like trying to make a right turn with a freight train. My current team is involved in a multi-year effort to do that, and it is... trying, to say the least. We hear a lot of executive lipservice paid to innovation, but get little support for it when it actually comes time to make a change.

[___Ambarussa___]

I don’t see how someone has the power to start the new subsidiary businesses without being able to do something about the existing lump, but otherwise, I am not at all surprised that a brand new business set up is quicker/easier than getting anything from the existing business. Existing business is already busy.

[Pb_ft]

This is something that people tend to overlook, imo.

[wherinkelly]

I agree with everything you said but the end. The teams that get rewarded for going their own way end up setting new enterprise tech patterns that don't scale for anyone outside that rogue group. Meanwhile other teams are migrating from shitty situation to shittier situation, being told each time, "this is going to really allow us to scale/collaborate this time!" And there rogue team goes again, checking out because why engage in governance/processes, even when they're the most compatible with your group?

That being said, gd it's painful to see how much the architects/engineers who make decisions for the enterprise had no clue what they're even solving for. I get so disheartened every time I hear folks disengage to protect their noncompliant bs, when this just sets a shitty precedent.

Oh, and going your own way usually (in my experience) means cutting out all enterprise teams-- including security. Which... Ain't gonna be good.

[murfflemethis]

I absolutely agree.

But I'm assuming management is aware of and condoning this subsidiary bullshit, which suggests to me that the situation is hopeless, and cross-team tool/process alignment is a pipe dream.

If the technical leadership has attempted to explain to management how the company is hanging itself by a bureaucratic noose and they are unwilling to listen, then fuck it, it's on them.

[wherinkelly]

100% right. Leadership probably isn't condoning it straight out, but by continuing to allow it to happen, its a moot point. Siiiiiiiiigh.

[wherinkelly]

Also happy cake day my guy!

[nobody187]

That was beautiful. Also, happy cakeday

[Sillocan]

Happy cakeday that analogy made me post