5 ms·
Is creating the ticket really adding value to the engineering process? In your example you already have the engineer making a PR (presumably peer reviewed) and
by carlisle_ 4y ago
Is creating the ticket really adding value to the engineering process? In your example you already have the engineer making a PR (presumably peer reviewed) and a commit, what’s the ticket really needed for?
- mr-ron 4y agoIt can add value if done right. Just as you typically want to make a design doc / rfc before working on a project, you often want to describe what you are doing before you do it. This can protect the engineer / team against scope creep, as well as determine the context of why work was done when you may need to understand more context (in the case of a bug for example). Also it increases accountability and transparency. It is common that teams want to know what other engineers are working on and why.
- carlisle_ 4y agoWe’re still talking about updating documentation right?
- mr-ron 4y agoI think we started there but have extended into a different discussion as to 'why is jira important to engineering teams'.
- carlisle_ 4y agoI think you made that leap, but I was responding to the specific example. I don’t think anybody is contesting the use of tickets in engineering, but I’ll certainly oppose the idea that Jira is important.
- azemetre 4y agoI'm explicitly referring to internal docs for the engineers that no one outside the team sees or cares (unless they want an example of docs). They're mostly markdown files or adding annotations to various code. I still think it's inane and seeing all the justification for "believe in the process" it's no wonder how little truly gets done in the name of agile/scrum/control.
- treis 4y agoIt's not a lot of value but it's also not a lot of effort. At minimum it gives a little bit of visibility into what you're doing and why to the rest of the team. That's probably worth the 2 minutes it takes to create a ticket.
- carlisle_ 4y agoFor updating internal documentation? I think we should be careful to ensure we’re actually adding value when we add friction, and not just hoping.
- mr-ron 4y agoWhat is the scope of this documentation change? Is this a quick edit, or is this a whole new tutorial for new engineers getting their stack up? How long is this going to take? Do you want an engineer every standup saying 'im working on documentation' without any accountability?
- carlisle_ 4y agoYou really want to add friction to completing those tasks? How long does it really take to complete any one of those things, and how is a ticket going to change the fact it probably needs to get done anyway? Why am I going to write a ticket for docs I can write in an hour and be done with? Why would you want the docs to stay out of date until a ticket is created, rather than just fixing them? Frankly I think you missed the point of the article. If you don’t trust your engineers to prioritize their own time when it comes to writing documents, you don’t trust them to do anything. You’re exactly a part of the problem that Will is talking about.
- mr-ron 4y agoI dont really think you are grasping what I am saying. I want engineers to make tickets, and prioritize their time themselves. Creating a ticket to update docs is fine because it allows the engineer to set the scope, and define the audience. That said, I dont want an engineer spending days on a task that will not bring value, nor do I want work done that will fall through the cracks, or have duplicate work done. Asking an engineer to create a ticket to create documentation is not the hurdle you think it is.