@arakin the other issue I have with mob programming is that a lot of its proponents are somewhat religious about it while not actually getting the point.

In my experience (which is probably a biased sample) about 4/5 of them profess it will cure cancer, but actually just like the fact it lets them take over the team permanently and talk all the time. These are the loud and dangerous ones which I make a point of putting myself in a position to tell to fuck off.

The remaining 1/5 are actually clued up on it, know the theory behind it, have enough emotional intelligence to understand than making sure all needs are met is the most importantly part and are worth listening to.

But again, it’s probable my sample is biased.

@arakin but yeah, pair programming is amazing as long as you get two people who are trying in good faith to work together and lift each other up rather than making it an ego thing

@arakin yeah… that was essentially the argument I had.

We had certain individuals who talked without gaps, and when confronted by others responded by saying they needed to do this to think. When it was posited that maybe other people needed space to think, and the opportunity to contribute, the response was that this was our problem. Because letting people talk as much as they like is easy, but making sure all needs are met is hard and requires effort and skill. And acknowledges that the majority of engineers can’t just pick this up from first principles.

I do not feel like I’m emotionally intelligent, but I’m told I am. I think it’s because I’ve spent a tonne of sleepless nights working out why this sort of thing is bullshit and how to explain that to people. And when that fails, putting myself in a position to veto it.

Fortunately, I am the senior engineer now, and at least for the time being I have enough clout to tell people to fuck off when they start trying lazy and toxic bullshit like that.

@glyph @griotspeak @mcc @mhoye sorry, to clarify, by “optional” I mean the focus in this sort of culture is to provide for the needs of the individual. So if someone says they work best going off alone, we’ve built up enough trust to pack them a metaphorical lunch box and send them on their way.

Again. Kind of a unicorn culture and I’m not sure I’ll ever see this again.

@glyph @griotspeak @mcc @mhoye with the “optional” part, at least in pairing, a big part of that is culture.

There’s a shift to be made in a team from “a group of individual contributors” to “we all sink or swim together, and it’s the job of the experienced members to lift up their juniors”.

This is, and again I speak from experience, a very difficult shift. But it makes a massive difference to both morale and productivity.

I’m lucky to work in a team where the senior staff are all of that mindset and we’re able to propagate it to anyone who joins. Honestly, it’s the only reason I’m still here.

But again, you need a bunch of powerful and emotionally intelligent people to set that baseline. And that’s… not guaranteed in engineering teams.

@glyph @griotspeak @mcc @mhoye very much so.

Both mobbing and pairing require emotional intelligence, or at the very least leadership who can ensure that needs are met for everyone.

My personal experience is that mobbing requires exponentially more of both and in some cases just isn’t practical.

@griotspeak @mcc @glyph @mhoye honestly, I love pair programming. I would pair most of the time and ditch asynchronous PRs if given the choice. And part of the issue with mobbing was just plain toxic management.

With pair programming the balance of dynamics is usually such that as long as you have two people working in good faith and a good culture you can usually work it out and be flexible enough for both parties. It’s also easier to pick and choose effective effective relationships.

My experience with extended (as opposed to occasional) mob programming is that it requires actual skills/training and either a specific set of personalities or a lead with strong emotional intelligence in order to bridge the gap. Mobbing is a lot harder to get right and if any team wants to try it for extended periods I whole heartedly recommend getting an experienced coach in.

@griotspeak @mcc @glyph @mhoye

In the job where this was an issue management refused to provide any of that. It was implemented badly, we went straight into chaos with no guidance. We had certain individuals with certain neurodivergent traits who, and as I say this I lay the fault at management and not these individuals, flourished at the expense of the rest of the team. Leadership refused to step in in order to make sure that everyone’s needs were met while still insisting on mobbing.

I can’t speak for the other individuals who got burned out.

@mcc @glyph @mhoye I had that argument with a previous employer over mob programming.

They were trying to make everyone do it, it was burning some of us out.

Their response was “you can just not do it and the rest of the team will do it without you”.

Well, oh Einstein of managers, what do you think is going to happen when all the tools and communication structures the team uses assume mob programming, just like is required to do it properly? It’s not a real option to just not engage. You’ve just forced several of your staff out of a job because it was that or burning them out within weeks, and you’ve managed to paint it as their fault.

Ever since then I’ve been incredibly cynical about any “cultural shifts”. If it’s optional then it’s totally not optional they just don’t want to take the responsibility.

@mcc @glyph @mhoye But yes. One of the contributing factors to the AI issue is that Google Search has been purposely been made worse. Right now the drive to make people use Gemini only doubles down on that incentive.