alnewkirkcom

7 ms·

1.
by alnewkirkcom 1y ago
I believe that some people (myself included, at first) feel that A.I. threatened the craftsmanship and hard-fought-and-won understanding that comes from engineering software over time, without A.I.
2.
The Parable of the Chair Machine
2 points by alnewkirkcom 1y ago|1 comments
3.
The Veil of Romance in Work – A Reflective Spoken-Word Piece(soundcloud.com)
1 points by alnewkirkcom 1y ago|0 comments
4.
by alnewkirkcom 1y ago
Exactly. I wrote in the article: "If a company stops paying you, you'll stop showing up. If you stop showing up, they'll stop paying you. That's the core exchange. Everything else, the speeches, the slogans, the faux loy
5.
Engineering Metrics Are Bullshit – Change My Mind(alnewkirk.com)
5 points by alnewkirkcom 1y ago|1 comments
6.
You and your employer are not monogamous; you're friends with benefits at best(alnewkirk.com)
3 points by alnewkirkcom 1y ago|2 comments
7.
by alnewkirkcom 1y ago
A couple of things: The knee-jerk reaction is to think CBC and bi-directional accountability must be some movement or uprising led by subordinates in an attempt to check/curtail the control of their superiors, or to at least balance th
8.
by alnewkirkcom 1y ago
I haven't read it, but the SaaS subreddit cited "High Output Management". See https://www.reddit.com/r/SaaS/comments/17ue6lm/comment/k935k...
9.
by alnewkirkcom 1y ago
In a post-CBC world, the successor would be asked to renegotiate the predecessor's open/pending agreements or propose replacements.
10.
by alnewkirkcom 1y ago
You're asking the right question: what enforces it? Think about how societies enforce contracts in general. Governments could, in theory, just stop enforcing citizen/property rights or contracts. But they don't, because if th
11.
by alnewkirkcom 1y ago
The point isn't that people in power will suddenly volunteer to be "checked." It's that CBC allows leaders to "put their money where their mouth is". Leaders who claim to want ownership cultures, meritocracy, a
12.
by alnewkirkcom 1y ago
I understand the sentiment. That's the current status quo: keep things verbal, keep them fuzzy, keep an escape hatch handy (i.e., plausible deniability). The whole point of bi-directional accountability (via CBC) is to shut those doors
13.
by alnewkirkcom 1y ago
"Collaborate by Contract" (CBC) is my framework; it's new, and I'm publishing it piece by piece. It's not an "industry standard" yet, but it's more than theory: it's how I've learned to get
14.
by alnewkirkcom 1y ago
Most orgs don’t actually have (or want) accountability symmetry because they’d have to give up the comfort of ambiguity. There's rarely a mechanism to audit past decisions, objectively assess people or projects, or enforce meritocracy.
15.
by alnewkirkcom 1y ago
You’re right about the root cause: power asymmetry exists. Leaders usually hold the levers, and without checks, accountability flows one way. The point of CBC (and bi-directional accountability) isn’t to "arrest the King." It’s to