Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by akomtu 1682 days ago
Those extra axes seem easy to fake. Just "review" all code reviews you see - takes 5 sec per CR and your metrics skyrocket. Mission of the team? Write some bs docs with vision and ideas: nobody needs them, but you get to mark the checkbox. Team culture? Say you've organized a book reading club, even do a couple meetings - just bring a book there and mark the checkbox. Books don't actually need to be read. Want to score some diversity points? Say your book reading club studied "white fragility" - nobody is going to verify you havent and nobody really cares, but you get to mark the checkbox.
3 comments

That wouldn't fly at FB. Doing busywork without producing impact doesn't count for anything. And CR comments are reviewed by managers - a bunch of LGTMs doesn't add up to much. It might unblock the team, but the goal is to uplevel the team, so meaty comments that impart knowledge are searched out.
I would have thought that people would start doing smaller and smaller change requests, collaboratively enabling each other to do more and smaller & quicker code reviews

True teamwork

What's the incentive for those managers to take you down like that? Even then, you can write prose in comments - semi-related thoughts that are very difficult to distinguish from actually valuable comments.
The incentive is the calibrations where the org leaders get together to compare notes and align on scoring. A manager who's not aligned would not only see their reports' scores forcefully shifted, but their own performance as a manager would be seen in a more negative light.
This sounds like some different version of hell to me.

But hey, if you can make it work - and it sounds like you do - then all the power to you! :) I must admit I do like seeing the middle digit you're raising in their direction there.

(Edit: Even though CRs ought to be taken seriously, for the sake of your fellow engineers).

Goodhart's law in effect.

I once had a job where a portion of our bonus was related to an automated code quality score. Needless to say, we reverse engineered the algorithm and scripted the (pointless, probably slightly harmful) changes to the source to maximise the score.

What did and didn't the score algorithm like?

(Did you reverse eng it during work time :-))

There were several components, but the parts that were I can remember were gamed were code duplication - someone figured out the minimum number of matching lines required for it to be detected and made minor changes in the middle of blocks - and number of imports. The penalty for .* imports was quite low, so we just ended up with wildcard imports everywhere.
Ok :-) I'm surprised they were looking for duplicated code, interesting