Rosedale resigns....

all I got was little red X's.

I think so!

I once received the smackdown from Robin (a nice smackdown, of course) when I had no idea she was ever within miles of the thread!

Really takes a person aback! How embarrasking, I thought!

On the other hand, I was flattered she even read what I said, much less took the time to smack it down!

coco

I think I am in love with Robin, he/she is funny!!!

Get in line! And it's a she for sure

Just finished reading this thread and thought I might add something about the TAO that has not been said yet.

Corporate statements about work ethics in my experience do not reflect the reality of the situation within a company mostly. It may say that people get to choose what they work on but this probably means they set personal goals over a period of time and have a high degree of ability to move teams that handle different tasks. It probably does not mean that on a daily basis they get to chop, change and choose which bugs or features to work on.

It is easy to blame the TAO for the bugs and stability problems but in reality take a look at Microsoft software - no TAO that I have heard of and yet many, many bugs and problems that are never addressed but are glossed over in a new interface make-over every version of the product (Windows, Office, etc.)

Just my thoughts for what they are worth.

People who bash the Tao are usually the same ones that bash LL in-general, every chance they get. They seem to want to believe that it means that somebody who was hired to, say, work on Havok4 can suddenly decide they want to play sodoku all day instead and then stay employed for very long. IMO, they sit close to the ones who think Lindens are secretly bidding at land auctions to drive prices up or creating inventory issues so that people will have to buy stuff again and drive the economy.

There are potential problems with all Management styles

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Too much Micro-management leads to very up-tight offices. Employees become afraid to act on anything substantial unless the boss okays it. Overall productivity goes down because the Boss cant be everywhere at once.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Preassure Management leads to paranoid offices. Employees become concerned for their jobs. Overall productivity suffers because people are busy trying to cover their ass, so they wont be a target.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Pressure Management styles lend to laid back offices.

Too little accountability cuts productivity, If employees are largely only responsible to themselves they won't work on projects that are boring or troublesome. You simply wont have enough "Self-Starters" for an entire office.

The Tao sounds like it is very Low Pressure, LOL worse it sounds so Laid-back that its Hippie Dippie.

There have been press statements that employees work on what they would like, that they have an inter-office *love-point* system. Peace, Love and Rock and Roll. Guess thats San Francisco for you.

Hi Colette,

One of my points was that it may sound that way but reality may be different when you work there. I don't think you can just go on the TAO description. To me it sounds too idealistic to be accurate necessarily.

EDIT: Also I don't necessarily trust press reports either.

http://blog.secondlife.com/2006/07/25/the-tao-of-linden/

Also the Love Machine ..



This describes a VERY laid back work environment. If it is as they describe, I simply don't know how they manage to hire so many self-starters.

Well you may be right about it being laid back Colette but nothing in what you have posted says for sure that employees get to choose what to work on each day bug by bug or feature by feature - it could still be that they have to choose an area to work in and can change areas at review time. I think my argument has validity still

I had actually read the TAO before posting also

I'm not so sure that matters as much as you may be describing.

Unless each person is only assigned to one specific area, they will still have the latitude to work on the projects they find more appealing, neglecting others.

This happens even in High-Pressure and Micro-Managed structures,

Just in the Low Pressure environment it tends to happen quicker and to go on longer.

"I,I,)I'm just a love machine
And I won't work for nobody but you
(I,I )I'm just a love machine
A hugging kissing fiend

I think it's high time you knew
Whenever I think of you
My mind blows a fuse
When I look in your eyes
My meter starts to rise
And I become confused
My motor cranked electricutes
When I'm sitting next to you
Electricity starts to flow
And my indicator starts to glow

(I,I,)I'm just a love machine
And I won't work for nobody but you
(I,I )I'm just a love machine
A hugging kissing fiend

I'm gentle as a lamb
I'm not that hard to program
There's no way that you can lose
Chassis fits like a glove
I've got a button for love
That you've got to use (push it push it baby)
If you look into my file
I am sure you can find out how
To turn me on just set my dial
And let me love you for a little while ooooooh

(I,I,)I'm just a love machine
And I won't work for nobody but you
(I,I )I'm just a love machine
A hugging kissing fiend

La... La la la la..... La la la la.. La la
La la la la la.. La la la.... La la laaaaaaaaa
Push it push it baby, yeah......ah, ah

(I,I,)I'm just a love machine
And I won't work for nobody but you
(I,I )I'm just a love machine
A hugging kissing fiend".

This is what I was trying to say, but you said it better.

Colette,

If it is really how you suggest then I am amazed that *any* significant number of bugs get fixed at all. Surely programmers would only work on new things and very few bugs would get attention. However, as much as we perceive that to be the case, many bugs do get fixed or "fixed" (i.e. the behaviour changes from one broken behaviour to another broken behaviour) even if the testing of said bugs leaves a lot to be desired in some cases.

Another point to consider is that LL management would have to be crazy not to had down some edicts that programmers must spend time fixing bugs during times when changes make the software very unstable/unusable.

Also didn't LL say themselves that the teams for new features such as Windlight, Mono, etc are different to the ones working on bugs? How could that be - surely all programmers would want to work on the new stuff?

Maybe I am way off base here but something does not add up to me. I can believe that the work ethic is relaxed but not to the point that is being suggested - that just sounds dyfunctional. Clearly LL and their software are not dysfunctional - at least not from my perspective.

PS. Clearly Phil is smoking something though if he came up with that Love Machine thingy The worst idea I have ever heard of.

Well I imagine it works like any office.

There will always be self-starters who do more than their "Share" of work, and will work on the more unpleasant tasks. This will lead to many high priority things being corrected.

Additionally I am sure when things get bad there is management or peer pressure to try to dig out from certain problems.

That happens nearly everywhere regardless of how laid-back the management style is.


-----------------
I've worked in several different structures over the years.

What I have found is best is one that tailors the amount of low-level management to the employees in question.

Let the true self-starters go .. Just ask how they are progressing and offer more work when needed.

Set specific goals for those whose focus wanders a little, and make sure they are accomplishing their work in a reasonable time frame.

And for those who need baby-sat you need to give Detailed Work Assignments and Strict Deadlines to. Those who can't stick to them, need to be give more mundane tasks that require them to directly respond.

Expecting everyone to thrive in the same environment is probably unrealistic.

I think what a lot of people would like to see, if Robin Linden, et al, are still reading this thread, is a basic clarification of the "Tao of Linden." Seems like a lot of people are getting a bad impression of the looseness of work ethic that it seems to describe.

It makes some of us feel very uncomfortable that LL employees are allowed to "choose" what they want to work on. Is it a day to day basis? Like can Chuck Linden come in and say, "Meh, I feel like working on Havok 4 today," and then the next day, "Meh, let's work on Inventory Loss?" I mean, is there ANY continuity? ANY reportability?

Just curious...

Well if the charges are true (I'm not saying they are) then there has been some dysfunctional going on.

But Obviously - Like you've said it can't be entirely dysfunctional.

Also, I bet they have a few AMAZING employees there who thrive in a low pressure environment who pick up the slack for those who don't.

Would like to point out I am just speculating based on what people were talking about.

Heck if I know how the "Tao of Linden" and the "Love Machine" are actually implemented.

*laughs* fair enough and I think we agree in the saliant points really.
I just think when things go wrong though and people are frustrated it is easy to point to obvious targets like the TAO saying it is to blame and there have been plenty saying that.

makes you wonder what is next? The Zen of Customer Service?

"There is no phone!"

I agree, this would be nice - perhaps an entry on the blog, "A Day in the Life of an LL Programmer".

Funny you mention that-

It did become a little bit more difficult to find the Support Phone number when they made the changes for the support portal.

I think the Tao thing is a bad bit of PR, and nothing more.

Self-starters with an almost religion-like zeal, or at least deep belief in the project don't really need management. Heh, try to manage one and you are in for an ugly surprise.

The top tech minds *purposefully* tackle the ugly stuff, and yes, they will sorta pick out what they want to work on - often by virtue of getting good at it.

It's the 8-to-5'ers that end up with the tedious, usually simplistic boring stuff - and a lot of them like it that way, too. More predictable. Able to get the kids at the babysitter, go home, eat. These are the people cuddling on the couch in front of the TV while the fanatics are still working, sucking down Code Red and Pizza Hut at 11pm with regularity.

So the custodial staff doesn't have a Tao, a clean toilet is a clean toilet is a clean toilet on Monday morning. Same with the guys working on bugs. It's working... or it's not.

But somewhere waaay up there you've got a conversation: where is this platform going? What should it be like? What can be accomplished, who wants to try it?

It would be foolish to leave the top staff out of that conversation - and so they are in on it. There's your Tao, and it's a good thing. These guys aren't going to slack off, or look away from problems. They don't even know how to do that - it would be unthinkable.

* * * * *

I'm an ex software guy, an ex project lead, an ex engineering department manager - at every step of the way, the people I worked with didn't even know how not to fight for the engineering cause du jour.

One friend in charge of a software effort had an eye injury, and was told to go home for three days for insurance purposes (if he got worse the company would have been liable).

And when he came back, he said it was like a religious experience. He had forgotten: what kind of music he liked, what he did in his spare time, all of that... and felt terrible that everyone else was working 70-80 hours/wk while he was 'slacking.'

He was typical. I was worse. It's a fluke I ever left that environment, and for that strange twist of fate I am thankful. But having walked in those shoes, I don't sweat the Tao. I'd even go so far as to say: it's appropriate.

These kind of people aren't working in the typical sense of the word, though it may look like work. They are fulfilling their life's ambition, and they will sweat the ugly boring details that you and I haven't even imagined yet.

Robin better not be reading this now, she deserves a day off.

As for the Tao it doesn't concern me that they can choose to do what they want, they have to take responsibility for their choices, I don't see anything in it that suggests they can play about with something, get nothing worthwhile done and then play about with something else.

The problem I have with the Tao is that certain issues get ignored.

You will get people like that in every field.

Its just (some) technical people I think that assume its some sort of situation unique to Engineering/Computers.

One of my bosses very much thought so

He seemed to think all computer developers were like that, so when he hired one to help us on a project he ASSUMED she was a self starter.

LOL, she was the complete opposite.

-------

Anyway obviously human work dynamics didn't change because someone figured out how to make a plastic box do neat things.

Well, unless you have time to coddle them you fire the ones that need babysitting and hire more self-starters.

I understand your point, but if I had to book to write about it I think the human dynamic *did* change... for all of us. Alvin Toffler and all that.