- Xenix.
- Stray humans.
[Previous log file]
- Big rooms don't ship. (permalink)
Committees are the anathema of innovation. Overly diffused responsibility is an adequate measure against existential risks - and that's why we generally prefer democracies over authoritarianism - but it also ensures mediocrity at best - and that's why inevitably governments, all over the world, are considered ineffective, the more so the more "developed" a democracy is.
I doubt that there is a particular "shape" - organizational structure, that can avoid this. Innovation requires ownership, ownership requires trust. And trust usually is not given, and probably should not - a priori.
The way this works, if one has the right people, is that someone somewhere decides to act: focus, execute, deliver - good work is viral, it gets adopted by the undeniable merits of the solution.
Once someone demonstrates these skills, they should get "certified" - entrusted with ownership, with the ability to start larger projects. This might result in promotions and the like, and then the cycle repeats if the individual wants to grab more space, solve bigger problems.
The only thing a company should do is to protect the space and the culture that fosters such endeavours. Clearly explain what the company is looking for (so that people can self-evaluate the ROI of potential ideas), and clearly, and publicly reward people who successfully delivered.
Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:26:54 -0700
- Xenix. (permalink)
In my retro-computing and emulation adventures I've stumbled upon some tales of Microsoft's Xenix. The name was not unfamiliar to me, but I never knew what the idea was - or rather, being an Unix clone, I assumed - and this is undoubtedly coloured by a more contemporary view (of Linux) - it was something that Microsoft wanted to have for mainframes and the like.
Apparently, not (only). The idea was for DOS to be the single-user, monotasking OS, and Xenix was intended to the foundation of what to come next: multitasking. This also had to wait on hardware, not just power, but crucially, memory protection. We take all these things for granted, but at the time, they were grand ideas, the difference between minicomputers, mainframes and micro/personal computers.
Various companies were on board - and we know where the history went.
This is a reminder not only that in IT (fast moving, fast spreading innovation) long-term plans and design-by-committee always fails (good for maintenance, safety, risk-aversion - not for innovation), but also that "good" ideas quickly get out of hand of their designers.
I'd be curious to know how much - at least for the xenix's leaders, the success of dos and later of single-tasking graphical UIs (windows) caught them off guard. Personal computing only needed a platform, not a "good" one in terms of technical sophistication, just anything to bring the chaos under control, to enable a hardware/software ecosystem to flourish. Microsoft did it first with Basic, then with DOS/Windows and arguably it is doing now the same thing (albeit, not as pioneering, but still, successfully) with Azure.
Plans don't survive the first contact... but "happy accidents" can also catch you off guard. And this is the "move fast break things" ethos and the various other myriad ways of saying the same thing.
Sat, 27 Jul 2024 14:04:16 -0700
- Stray humans. (permalink)
Stray cats, sometimes dogs, you might encounter walking down a street where I come from.
Where I moved, my second identity now, we have stray humans. Everywhere.
It is wearing me down to a point where I want to move to an even more affluent part of town, just to get what's likely to be a temporary respite from a problem we are unable to solve.
It is selfish and I realize the epitome of privilege, but it is also the truth, my empathy has been worn down.
I also think we are the cause. Prosperity brings inequality, in a measure that can't be compensated by progressive taxation - at least, not without effectively depressing the economy, thus, reducing the prosperity itself.
In other words, I don't think there is a way to create something like the Silicon Valley, that level of wealth, value-add, "productivity", without ending up with the downsides, it is, mathematical.
But the downsides might be just big enough that we should just accept this fact and live with it. What good is it to be wealthy in a place where you have to barricade yourself to not interact with the dystopia you caused?
One little thing that I don't see advocated much, when it comes to the social responsibility of companies, is to just avoid accelerating the issue.
Progressives in tech talk about the big stuff, saving the world, net-zero emissions, D&I and so on, but still within the constructs of big tech itself, with the illusion that if you're just smart enough, you can have your pie and eat it too. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Sustainability starts, imho, from not forcing all talent to move in the SV (or similar hotspots). You can create offices big enough to have all the "serendipity" that face to face human connection elicits, without adding to the problem.
And many people prefer not to displace themselves, so you might have a leg up in hiring talent. And, it is cheaper talent. Win-win-win?
Fri, 19 Jul 2024 11:43:45 -0700