[stego-tech]

This is not a new or novel idea. I proposed such a thing at the start of my career in tech, and repeatedly propose it when I feel I have ears willing to listen.

The problem - and I do mean the problem, the only problem - is the threat this poses to power dynamics in the organization.

Compliance people do not benefit from their outputs being readily searchable and indexed like this, because it means there’s less need for them. Executives and leaders do not benefit from this, because they’re increasingly hired specifically because of their knowledge of various compliance frameworks. The people whose power derives from this knowledge and expertise are overwhelmingly the people in charge of the company and its operations, and they benefit more from blocking it outright than implementing it.

Don’t get me wrong, I love this idea. I love transparency in organizations, because it makes it infinitely easier to identify and remediate problems beyond silo walls. It’s peak cooperation, and I am all for it.

I also do not see it happening at scale while competition is considered the default operating mode of society at large. That said, I would love to work for an organization placing importance on this degree of internal cooperation. I suspect I’d thrive there.

[majormajor]

What prevents people from not doing what the policy says? Since neither "paper doc" policy nor "code policy" actually constrains humans from trying to exploit or work around the system, oversight and compliance still seem like messy human functions. Does this just become "more structured compliance documentation"? Which sounds nice, but not dramatically different.

And on the creation side, what prevents political fights over what goes into the "code policy" of exactly the same sort that lead to compromises or oddities in paper policies?

[observationist]

It constrains power and makes decisions auditable and holds those with power accountable to guidelines. Management doesn't like this paradigm for the very same reasons big tech platforms make conduct and moderation guidelines vague and nonspecific. It frees them up to remove, penalize, fire, and otherwise exert power for reasons they can't explicitly justify.

It's exactly the same paradigm the EU and countries around the world are avoiding - denying due process in things like freedom of press and expression, because they feel it allows them flexibility in suppressing and "managing" speech, people, and groups they deem problematic.

Having an explicit rule of law constrains the exercise of power. Those looking to wield power will never like that.

[9rx]

> The problem - and I do mean the problem, the only problem - is the threat this poses to power dynamics in the organization.

And expertise, to be fair. Documentation as code is what we in the software industry call testing/type systems. The vast majority of developers cannot even write a good test for their code (if they are willing to even try at all), let alone their eyes completely glazing over if you ask them to write, like, an Rocq proof. And that's people who live and die by code, not business people who are layers removed from the activity.

[jt2190]

> I also do not see it happening at scale while competition is considered the default operating mode of society at large.

You don’t even need competition between people and orgs, just between solutions that work more-or-less equally but come with different second-order tradeoffs. Consider two approaches that solve a company’s problem equally but create different amounts of work for different people in the organization. Which solution to choose? Who gets to decide, based on what criteria? As soon as even a little scale creeps in this is inescapable.

[NetOpWibby]

> That said, I would love to work for an organization placing importance on this degree of internal cooperation. I suspect I’d thrive there.

I've been looking for such a org my entire career but recently resigned myself[1] to the fact it'll probably not happen unless I come into a situation when I can create it myself.

---

[1] <https://blog.webb.page/WM-081>

[cootsnuck]

When/If you do want to create one yourself, there are a handful of tech cooperatives out there for inspiration: https://github.com/hng/tech-coops

[NetOpWibby]

This is great, thank you!

[fduran]

> This is not a new or novel idea

Yep https://x.com/fduran/status/1134283398594387969

[agumonkey]

Any books about workgroup power dynamics ? i'm fascinated (morbidly in a way) by that

[willhslade]

Harvard Business Review's Office Politics. Or any intro Industrial Psychology textbook.

[kukkeliskuu]

Keith Johnstone: Impro

[whattheheckheck]

Is it ISBN-13: 978-0878301171?

Or ASIN B01K2J06SY

[kukkeliskuu]

The first one is the classic. Don't know about the second one.

Power dynamics have been extensively investigated by the "Johnstone school" of improv, because humans are (mostly preconsciously i.e. usually are not but can become conscious about it) interested in power dynamics -- especially in situations where power balance is switching -- so this is the key if you want improvise acts that feel realistic and capture the audience attention.

To really understand it, I would recommend taking some improv classes that are based on Johnstone's teachings. But the book will give you the idea.

[agumonkey]

I tried digging around keith johnstone but i could only find theatrical improv which, unless it flies above my head, had very few to do with the workplace dynamics of real jobs. Unless the concept is to insist on the fact that adult life is just a play and treat your day like a space of randomness to disrupt the established roles ?

[kukkeliskuu]

The book is not only about improvisation theatre but I don't want to describe the ideas, as they can spoil the experience of reading it for you. I have yet to find another source that can describe the power dynamics (also in life) as succintly as he can.

[redanddead]

"Compliance" as we know it today is going away

[chickensong]

Care to elaborate?