Comment by fbuilesv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fbuilesv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's interesting that you mention Mr. Hamano since I was thinking about how Git or Linux works while writing my comment. I think we both agree that having someone who steers the ship is then fine, call it PM, higher-ups in the commit hierarchy, etc. The Linux kernel has people like like GregKH or even Linus who I'd call PMs, their main jobs are communication and reviews, not writing code. You don't need a parallel organization for this but you need to create some structure to support a big number of people working in different projects under the same umbrella.

I think your comments are targeted more towards having someone "illiterate" steering the ship and that is a whole different thing that's not mentioned anywhere in the article. I won't argue anything in this regard since I think it's really dependent on the person and not the abstract role, but it seems (judging from the other comments in the thread) that most people have been burned by people with no knowledge giving direct orders on how to proceed.

so we have highly skilled technical practitioners, intimately familiar with the codebase, such as that found in the "commit hierarchy" of Linux/git.

i cannot equate them with PRoject/product/programme managers, especially not with the overriding focus on planned dates.

We have a industrial management system based on the physical needs of large scale factory style production. And it is ignoring the management styles of the creAtive industries - where there is always a commit hierarchy and this not in it are ignored or supply finan e

I like your last paragraph. I don't know what the future will bring but I totally agree that today's world works mostly under an old school, factory-style management regime, which is not efficient in industries like ours.

Having said that, I personally still see value in some of those old practices. As [lukatmyshu] mentioned in this thread:

Think of [PMs] as oil in an engine. The best ones know how to communicate extremely well, are paragons of organization, and know how to facilitate decision making.

Instead of getting in the way they make life easier for everybody. I do understand that's not the typical experience for most people in our line of work.

At the risk of dragging on a thread, I would suggest that a job function that requires "the best" before it adds significant value, and otherwise is anecdotally a -1 sounds like a job function it's risky to hire for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com