Archive for April, 2008

Google App Engine has a great logo

Monday, April 28th, 2008

In all of the discussion I’ve read about Google’s App Engine, I’ve rarely seen anyone call attention to the logo. That’s a shame. The App Engine logo is a brilliant piece of work.

I mean, look at that thing. Strap some stubby little wings on a big ol’ turbine engine, and get ready to go somewhere. What a great visual metaphor for the promise of programming against part of the Google infrastructure. And check out those understated colors. That is a logo that gets its point across without searing your eyeballs or resorting to smoke and mirrors.

Whoever designed the App Engine logo is due some major kudos.

Legal boilerplate goes oops

Monday, April 7th, 2008

A startup I worked for was recently acquired. Merger paperwork has been arriving in clumps. One document that invited my signature included the wording:

“You have reviewed and understand the escrow and indemnification provisions of Article VII of the Merger Agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit 1), …”

So, being in a responsible mood, I had a go at Exhibit 1, even though I’m way out of my depth, and am such a minor shareholder that were I to heave all of the paperwork into the trash, the merger would proceed without noticing my absence.

After slogging through nine narcolepsy-inducing pages of turgid legal prose, I found this little gem in the final paragraph:

“A decision, act, consent, or instruction of the Shareholder Representative, including an amendment, extension, or waiver of this Agreement pursuant to Section Error! Reference source not found, and Section Error! Reference source not found, hereof, shall constitute a decision …”

Now that’s I bit that I do understand.

Velocity, or Capacity?

Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008

I’ve seen teams “game” velocity, doing risky things (like letting unit testing slip and quality drop) to keep their velocity high. It didn’t occur to me that part of the problem might be terminology. Tim Ottinger’s “Velocity is Just Capacity” gave my thinking a serious nudge.

“Velocity” evokes speed and quickness. Speed and quickness are good. Speed and quickness win races and awards. A manager whose team has a high velocity is a winner. Recall Mike Cohn’s advice to alway append “billion” onto any velocity number that you give to a manager so that they can one-up their peers.

But consider the reframe: A team has a demonstrated “capacity” for taking on work. The prior iteration (or a weighted average of the past few iterations), establishes a Load line (AKA “Plimsoll line”) around the team. Load is a measure of capacity. It’s velocity as Agile uses the term, but without the baggage of evoking competition. Discussions about increasing capacity are subtley different from discussion about increasing speed. Tim lays it out nicely in his article. I think he’s on to something.

Is a terminology shift all we need to drive out bad velocity behavior? Sadly, no, but I think it would be step in a good direction.

On Relying on History

Tuesday, April 1st, 2008

“As the old Santayana quote goes, ‘those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,’ but in Silicon Valley, those who rely on their command of history too much often find themselves getting crushed by a 23-year-old who skipped history class in favor of a CS degree.”