A word I started emphasizing more recently is "strategy". Why do different political groups, from the same side, that share the same end goal, can be fighting so much on what to do. Because they disagree on the strategy.
Even for a shared target, there are many different strategies, many are possible, but with a lot of unknown on which on…
A word I started emphasizing more recently is "strategy". Why do different political groups, from the same side, that share the same end goal, can be fighting so much on what to do. Because they disagree on the strategy.
Even for a shared target, there are many different strategies, many are possible, but with a lot of unknown on which one would work or not. What it will look like depending on a strategy, which strength and weaknesses can sometime be grasped. But is it necessary, is it going to work at all, is not as clear.
We are trained for competitive environments, where the best strategy wins over the not as good one. So fighting over strategy is important, because it is success or not. In a cooperative environment, with many actors, strategy has a way different impact and should be addressed differently.
Some started noticing this and describe their reviews as "personal", "style", "how I like it", "nitpick" instead of principle of this must be done differently.
Does the code work, yes. But there may be issues in the future if we need to do A B C. Is it worth or not putting more effort for this? It might bite us if we don't, or we may spend a lot of effort for nothing practical, it's strategy. You do not need to sit on your principle to accept that code you do not like (for good reason, of course).
Then you can describe more what are the strength, weaknesses you see in your strategy compared to the other one. And you can more easily comply to another strategy, as it did not affect your values, just the way to reach them.
A word I started emphasizing more recently is "strategy". Why do different political groups, from the same side, that share the same end goal, can be fighting so much on what to do. Because they disagree on the strategy.
Even for a shared target, there are many different strategies, many are possible, but with a lot of unknown on which one would work or not. What it will look like depending on a strategy, which strength and weaknesses can sometime be grasped. But is it necessary, is it going to work at all, is not as clear.
We are trained for competitive environments, where the best strategy wins over the not as good one. So fighting over strategy is important, because it is success or not. In a cooperative environment, with many actors, strategy has a way different impact and should be addressed differently.
Some started noticing this and describe their reviews as "personal", "style", "how I like it", "nitpick" instead of principle of this must be done differently.
Does the code work, yes. But there may be issues in the future if we need to do A B C. Is it worth or not putting more effort for this? It might bite us if we don't, or we may spend a lot of effort for nothing practical, it's strategy. You do not need to sit on your principle to accept that code you do not like (for good reason, of course).
Then you can describe more what are the strength, weaknesses you see in your strategy compared to the other one. And you can more easily comply to another strategy, as it did not affect your values, just the way to reach them.