Hacker News Reader

Comment by asb | Hacker News Reader

I'm struggling to understand the intended meaning of this comment "In addition, when there is a document they can refer to, individual contributors (ICs) can be given concrete feedback on performance if important decisions which are part of their responsibilities were not on their radar." Can anyone help interpret it?

Assuming the author is reading this, how do you manage the feedback and decision-making process for these RFCs?

View on HN

The way the author uses "RFC" is that it's essentially a possibly very rough draft design document for some technical implementation. The "Comments" part is what is otherwise known as a "design review."

My opinion is that what to do with feedback and final decision authority rests with the proposal owner except under certain circumstances. Some of these would be if a component of the proposal is particularly complicated, clearly not completely understood by the team (e.g. there are dependencies on other teams that need more clarity), or contentious (e.g. major rewrites, switching to new frameworks or data storage and pipelines, etc.). In the latter I require consensus especially: proliferation of languages, data store solutions, and frameworks is a real problem and rarely a good solution.

I assume the author meant that there is a paper trail (similar to commit history or bug tracking) that can be reviewed at performance time to evaluate if an IC was paying attention to and contributing to the design process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com