8 ms·

I've heard the term used in a purely negative sense, while personally thinking it's often necessary and sometimes brilliant to do some yak shaving. Some of the

I've heard the term used in a purely negative sense, while personally thinking it's often necessary and sometimes brilliant to do some yak shaving. Some of the best yak shavers I know are essential people, even in a "move fast" startup environment, because they effect significant change and improvement that can lift the whole team out of a local maximum of productivity. Maybe for people who use it negatively, "refactoring" or "unplanned improving" isn't "yak shaving" until you've gone beyond what's reasonable. E.g. if you're doing some recursive refactoring, and improving the code base, great, but yak shaving is when you've truly gone off course. Either way, I think this is where healthy team dynamics are so useful, because it's hard for the yak shaver to know if they've gone off course or are doing something unplanned but useful. If I think I'm deep in a yak shaving exercise, but I think the results will be beneficial, I announce that I'm yak shaving and explain why. If the rest of the team thinks it isn't truly a useful exercise, they can guide me out of it.

zilti 3y ago
Well said, thanks!
jt2190 3y ago
I’m having trouble understanding your example. Yak-shaving is a chain of preconditions, e.g: - In order to do Z, I must first do Y - In order to do Y, I must first do X - In order to do X, I must first do W Etc. Clearly the way to improve things is to shorten the chain of preconditions as much as is reasonable. In your example, it sounds like refactoring can “go off course”, but if we’re just shortening a chain of preconditions, how would it go off course? Wouldn’t we know what precondition we were eliminating?
- lemmsjid 3y ago
  Poor choice of words on my part. In my example one is going "off course" in the sense that one is spending more time on the yak shaving than is justified by the scope of the problem being solved (e.g. let's say refactoring a script that is only run once, and spending more time on the refactoring than if one had manually replicated the script's output). Maybe "too deep in the rabbit hole" would be a more illustrative phrase.
ithkuil 3y ago
The yak hair is bad. The act of shaving it is good

zilti 3y ago

Well said, thanks!

jt2190 3y ago

I’m having trouble understanding your example. Yak-shaving is a chain of preconditions, e.g: - In order to do Z, I must first do Y - In order to do Y, I must first do X - In order to do X, I must first do W Etc. Clearly the way to improve things is to shorten the chain of preconditions as much as is reasonable. In your example, it sounds like refactoring can “go off course”, but if we’re just shortening a chain of preconditions, how would it go off course? Wouldn’t we know what precondition we were eliminating?

lemmsjid 3y ago
Poor choice of words on my part. In my example one is going "off course" in the sense that one is spending more time on the yak shaving than is justified by the scope of the problem being solved (e.g. let's say refactoring a script that is only run once, and spending more time on the refactoring than if one had manually replicated the script's output). Maybe "too deep in the rabbit hole" would be a more illustrative phrase.

ithkuil 3y ago

The yak hair is bad. The act of shaving it is good