Don't Make Gates Optional, Make Them Flexible

Discussion (4 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

jph•about 1 hour ago

Yes and the word you want isn't "flexible" it's "proportional".

A gate is best when it's proportional to what goes through it. Small project? The business case is "Pam thinks it's could be a good idea". Large project? The business case is a formal study. The word "proportional" makes it much easier for all the participants to understand that the gate is a sliding scale.

ispeters•about 2 hours ago

A compelling post. Something it doesn't mention that I immediately wonder about is how you ensure the decision to escalate from "a quick DM" to a "full business case review" (or whatever) isn't unreasonably biased.

If everyone is working with good intent then this doesn't matter. But the real world is full of unconscious 'isms so I suspect there's a risk that underrepresented folks are more likely to trip the extra process flag and thereby get slowed down disproportionately, leading to negative feedback loops.

wakamoleguy•about 2 hours ago

That's a really good question. This may also end up depending on the level of trust within the team. One thing I didn't call out is that an "optional gate" can still just be checked by sending a DM, like "Hey, do you think I need this check on this project?" So in high trust teams the differences are small.

On lower trust teams, I could see the cycle you mention crop up more. I'm not sure of the answer, but I don't think it is to force everybody through the onerous process out of perceived fairness. Any ideas on how to bring visibility to that failure mode?

ninju•about 3 hours ago

Just don't make the gates so flexible that due diligence can be avoided

Don't Make Gates Optional, Make Them Flexible

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion (4 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews