Senator Bennet, your email address doesn’t work.

I emailed my Senator a few weeks ago to oppose Gorsuch being appointed to the Supreme Court. His response seems to indicate he thinks Trump nominees are still worthy of consideration. That’s an absurd stance since they have been found to be lying under oath during the confirmation process.

Here is Senator Bennet’s response:

Dear Gregory:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the current vacancy on the Supreme Court.

On January 31, 2017, President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. He has served on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals since 2006.  Gorsuch clerked for Judge David Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. He also served as the Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice.

I take seriously the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to thoroughly vet Judge Gorsuch. I intend to review his record carefully in the coming weeks. Rest assured, I will keep your thoughts and concerns in mind throughout the confirmation process.

I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.

Below is my response


Senator, thanks for your response.

He has served on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals since 2006.  Gorsuch clerked for Judge David Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. He also served as the Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice.
 
None of this matters. You should be working to delay each and every nomination by Trump because the longer we delay them the less damage he can cause.
 
There should be no more confirmations until Sessions has resigned for lying under oath during his confirmation process. How can you trust anything that any Trump nominee has said in any hearing until it is clear that they take not lying to Congress seriously?

Alas… it seems he doesn’t want to accept email responses…
Your message was sent to a non-monitored mailbox and has not been reviewed. If you would like to contact Senator Michael Bennet please visit his website at http://bennet.senate.gov/contact and fill out the webform for a prompt response. Thank you.
So much for dialog… Hey look I have a blog…

Top Five Posts from 2016

Most of this blog’s 40k visitors a year are looking at the epic Elasticsearch posts that I wrote years ago. For the most part they seem to still be relevant to people even if they are somewhat outdated. Here are my top posts with some commentary about each of them.

2014-emailteaser

1: Elasticsearch: Five Things I was Doing Wrong

79% of my traffic comes from search engines, and almost 50% of all traffic goes to this one post. It’s actually kinda crazy that such a simple post gets so much of my traffic. I blame the clickbait headline. I have a bunch of long winded epic posts and what I should probably be writing is these small tidbits as they come up.

2: Three Principles for Multilingal Indexing in Elasticsearch

This is my all time favorite post. After 2.x and the removal of being able to specify an analyzer in a query it has become a bit outdated, but the overall concepts are still good. I love all the comments this post has generated. I’ve learned so much from this post and the discussions that it generated. We’ve accomplished a lot the past year to adjust our multi-lingual indexing (deployed edgengrams into an A/B test yesterday) and I’m hoping to write up what my latest thinking is soon.

3 and 4: Scaling Elasticsearch Series

The first two parts of this three part series are my third and fourth most popular posts. The indexing post is almost twice as popular as the intro and querying posts. Although these posts are almost three years old now they still describe pretty well how we scale most of our queries. Most of the reason why these posts haven’t been updated is because the methods they describe have worked really well for us.

The original post talks about having 600 million posts in the index and 23m queries a day. We now have 4.3 billion posts and do about 45m queries a day. That’s some good scaling.

Only over the past year have we started to see some problems slowly develop with our global cluster scaling. Currently the cluster runs fine for about a month or so and then heap usage creeps upwards until it starts to cause problems. The solution is just to do rolling restart of the cluster. Not pretty, but it works. Here’s what our average heap usage looks like broken down by data center for the past 30 days.

Screen Shot 2017-01-06 at 9.28.48 AM.png

We think a lot of these are just memory management bugs in the old Elasticsearch version we have been running for years and are hopeful that as we transition to 2.x many of them will be resolved. The other option is just to add more servers which we haven’t done in a few years. Our typical load is not very high though until we reach the point of running out of heap so I haven’t felt very justified in ordering more servers for this cluster yet.

One high point of this cluster is it taught us how to run a multi data center cluster. Every cluster we deploy now is multi-data center and we have successfully survived cases where an entire data center goes down. Currently we are in three data centers spread across the US. It’s likely that in 2017 we will start trying to run intercontinental Elasticsearch clusters (Europe and the US). Should be exciting.

5: Managing Elasticsearch Cluster Restart Time

This post describes how we manage long restart times. 2.x is a bit faster in this regard, but still takes a while to synchronize, so this is still relevant to managing a production ES cluster.

 

 

Notes from The Printing Revolution

I’ve been reading The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe by Elizabeth Eisenstein on the transition of Europe from a scribal culture to a printing culture. In referencing Michael Clapham:

A man born in 1453, the year of the fall of Constantinople, could look back from his fiftieth year on a lifetime in which about eight million books had been printed, more perhaps than all the scribes of Europe had produced since Constantine founded his city in A.D. 330.

The printing press had an immense and hard to correlate impact on the past 600 years. How will we build the tools and discover the norms that will shape the next 600 years? Here are some quotes that jumped out at me from the third chapter on the “features of print culture”.

“Increased output and altered intake”

To consult different books it was no longer so essential to be a wandering scholar. Successive generations of sedentary scholars were less apt to be engrossed by a single text and expend their energies in elaborating on it. The era of the glossator and commentator came to an end, and a new “era of intense cross referencing between one book and another” began.

Merely by making more scrambled data available, by increasing the output of Aristotelian, Alexandrian, and Arabic texts, printers encouraged efforts to unscramble these data. Some medieval coastal maps had long been more accurate than many ancient ones, but few eyes had seen either.

Contradictions became more visible, divergent traditions more difficult to reconcile.

Printing encouraged forms of combinatory activity which were social as well as intellectual. It changed relationships between men of learning as well as between systems of ideas.

The new wide-angled, unfocused scholarship went together with a new single-minded, narrowly focused piety. At the same time, practical guidebooks and manuals also became more abundant, making it easier to lay plans for getting ahead in this world – possibly diverting attention from uncertain futures in the next one.

“Considering some effects produced by standardization”

The very act of publishing errata demonstrated a new capacity to locate textual errors with precision and to transmit this information simultaneously to scattered readers.

Sixteenth-century publications not only spread identical fashions but also encouraged the collection of diverse ones.

Concepts pertaining to uniformity and to diversity – to the typical and to the unique – are interdependent. They represent two sides of the same coin. In this regard one might consider the emergence of a new sense of individualism as a by-product of the new forms of standardization.

It’s interesting to think of printing and the uniformity it spread as the birth of individualism. Does the internet, by connecting highly dispersed but like minded people into tight niches bring about a reduction of individualism? Bubbles of conformity within your tribe?

no precedent existed for addressing a large crowd of people who were not gathered together in one place but were scattered in separate dwellings and who, as solitary individuals with divergent interests, were more receptive to intimate interchanges than to broad-gauged rhetorical effects.

There is simply no equivalent in scribal culture for the “avalanche” of “how-to” books which poured off the new presses

“Reorganizing texts and reference guides: rationalizing, codifying, and cataloguing data”

printers with regard to layout and presentation probably helped to reorganize the thinking of readers.

Basic changes in book format might well lead to changes in thought patterns… For example, printed reference works encouraged a repeated recourse to alphabetical order.

Alphabetical ordering. The simplest of sorting algorithms. Today it seems that has been taken by reverse chronological sorting. Only the most recent thing is important.

“From the corrupted copy to the improved edition”

A sequence of printed herbals beginning in the 1480s and going to 1526 reveals a “steady increase in the amount of distortion,” with the final product – an English herbal of 1526 – providing a “remarkably sad example of what happens to visual information as it passed from copyist to copyist.” … data tended to get garbled at an ever more rapid pace. But under the guidance of technically proficient masters, the new technology also provided a way of transcending the limits which scribal procedures had imposed upon technically proficient masters in the past.

fresh observations could at long last be duplicated without being blurred or blotted out over the course of time.

“Considering the preservative powers of print: fixity and cumulative change”

Of all the new features introduced by the duplicative powers of print, preservation is possibly the most important.

as edicts became more visible, they also became more irrevocable. Magna Carta, for example, was ostensibly “published”

Copying, memorizing, and transmitting absorbed fewer energies.

“Amplification and reinforcement: the persistence of stereotypes and of sociolinguistic divisions”

Both “stereotype” and “cliché” are terms deriving from typographical processes developed three and a half centuries after Gutenberg.

an unwitting collaboration between countless authors of new books and articles. For five hundred years, authors have jointly transmitted certain old messages with augmented frequency even while separately reporting on new events or spinning out new ideas.

 

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. (2012-03-29). The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe (Canto Classics). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

Bash Your Day

For the past six months or so I’ve used a bash script to start my morning. The genesis of this idea was that I wanted to be more effective at prioritizing reviewing other peoples’ code and writing my own code. Assuming the number of hours one puts into work is fixed (because that is the only way for life to be sustainable), that means that I need to cut back on other things. The obvious things to minimize are time spent in Slack, on P2s (Automattic’s internal blogs), and time spent being distracted in the middle of the day because I can’t focus for whatever reason.

I decided to adapt the idea of reducing the number of decisions to make inspired a bit by Obama always wearing the same suit to reduce cognitive load. Rather than randomly looking at slack/p2s/email in the morning and trying to navigate how to go from one to then next, all I need to do is start a script, and it walks me methodically through everything I think I need to look at in the morning before I can really get to work coding. Eliminate having to think about what to look at and have some gentle reminders to prevent me from getting stuck doing things that aren’t really that important.

Screen Shot 2016-12-12 at 9.34.27 AM.png

The Script Basics

There are three fundamental functions in my script:
1. i_do_say(): Sends a message to the OS X notifications system and to the say command (advanced usage: speed up the rate and change the voice)
2. timed_msg(): sends a string to i_do_say(), then it waits the specified amount of time. The timer can be interrupted by hitting any key.
3. timed_confirm(): repeatedly calls i_do_say() every X seconds, prompting me to finish up and move on. There is an initial message, and then a second message that repeats indefinitely. I can type ‘d’ to add an extra 5 minutes of delay to the time.

The timed_msg() and timed_confirm() commands can be chained with && so if you cancel out of one then the following commands will be skipped. This makes it easy to have multiple messages in a group, but easily jump to the next thing when you are done. Here’s a good example:

timed_msg "Start five minutes of slack and IRC" 3 &&
timed_msg "Finish slack and IRC in two minutes" 2 &&
timed_confirm "Ready for alerts?" "Does today look like a catch up morning?" 180

I mix these commands along with some others like:

  • Opening a link in my email open https://inbox.google.com/u/0/
  • Closing slack: osascript -e 'quit app "Slack"'
  • Opening emacs: osascript -e 'activate application "emacs"'
  • Starting music: osascript -e 'tell application "iTunes"' -e 'set new_playlist to "Coding" as string' -e "play playlist new_playlist" -e "end tell"

The full repo of my scripts are in https://github.com/gibrown/bash-my-day

I have a reasonably complicated script for my morning with a couple options depending on what I am trying to work on. Some days you just know there is a lot of communication to catch up on, so the idea of quitting slack really won’t work, but my default is to get through Slack/P2s/Alerts/Planning/Meditation in about 30-40 minutes and then close Slack and start on reviewing other people’s code. Optimize for unblocking other people and getting myself to work on writing code (which typically is also about enabling someone else). The morning is also when I am the freshest, so it’s a good time to be coding. Once I get more tired in the afternoon I can get back to closing all those tabs I opened in the morning.

I also have a few other scripts:

  • Ending my day to set myself up for being successful tomorrow (close tabs!)
  • Lunch time I usually eat at my desk, good time to empty email and close tabs
  • A script to get me to close out slack again and get back to coding

Most days I find I only use the morning script. I still need to experiment more with whether the other scripts are helpful.

My Morning

You can see all of this in my morning script, but I thought I would run through my thinking:

  • 5 min: Slack and IRC: if something needs a lot of attention this is usually how I will find out. My main goal here though is to find things that need to be prioritized
  • 2 min: Look at alerts in my email: again, check for any fires
  • 5 min: open p2s, see if there are any I really need to respond to. This is my biggest weakness, ts hard to put off responding until later in the afternoon.
  • 5 min: looking at my to do list and choosing what to work on (all in org-mode in emacs)
  • 2-10 min: Meditation – recently added. it’s ramping up over the next few weeks from 2 minutes to start building the habit up to 10 minutes a day where I’d like to be. The ramp up is all scripted too: see timed_weekly_ramp(). I’ve tried fitting meditation into my day a few different ways before with not great success. I thought this may be good way to build the habit.
  • 5 min: Journal – I do a better job working on the important things if I do some amount of reflection. Recently this has been turning into a blog post which I’d like to make more often.
  • 2 min: write a standup report (2-5 lines) for my team about what I did yesterday and what I’m doing today
  • Music starts. I start reviewing code. Script prompts (repeatedly) me to close Slack. Eventually I do.
  • Move on to writing my own code. Prompt is just to write for 10 minutes. Once I get started I don’t tend to stop. Getting started in the face of distractions is usually the biggest problem.

Last week I also added a few options such as explicitly having catch up mornings when I have been away from work for a few days. Rather than pushing me into coding, those focus on getting me to clean out my inbox, and respond to p2s. Some days it is better to just admit to myself that I need to focus on communication rather than coding.

Results

So what impact did this have? Well, thanks to using Rescuetime to track my time over the past five years I have some pretty good data on that. I have my time broken into 5 categories: Most Productive (coding and code review), Productive (Slack, P2s, email), Neutral (mostly random websites), Distracting (Twitter), and Most Distracting (HackerNews, Talking Points Memo, other sites I refresh too often).

By comparing the past 6 months to the 6 months before that I can more or less see how much having these scripts impacted the percentage of time I spend in each of these categories:

  • Most Productive: up 27.7% (more coding and code review!)
  • Productive: down 14% (yay, less Slack!) Went from being 48% of my time down to 41%.
  • Neutral: down 22.6% (a lot fewer random sites!)
  • Distracting: down 13%
  • Most Distracting: down 9%

These metrics aren’t perfect, since what I work on varies over time. When I’m working on lots of hiring there is a lot more time spent on communication for instance. Its a little hard to correct for variations, but I’ve tried to look at the data for some shorter periods also and I get similar results.

I’m pretty convinced that using a script to push me through the morning both makes me feel more productive, and it does have a big impact on how I spend my time.

Is This Post True?

There’s a lot of discussion about what constitutes fake news, what impact it has, and whether blocking it is the bigger threat.

I’d like to instead talk about the perception of truth. How do we change the norms of publishing so that a mistake is detected rather than amplified? How do we broaden the context that an article lives within and dynamically update it as time passes and others expand on the original article? In what context are writers presenting their reporting and opinions?

I started reading Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” the other day. It was written in 1985, but feels very relevant today. I’m not that far into it, but the second chapter delves into the interplay between truth, and how the medium we are communicating in shapes that truth.

As a culture moves from orality to writing to printing to televising, its ideas of truth move with it. … Truth, like time itself, is a product of a conversation man has with himself about and through the techniques of communication he has invented.

that there is a content called “the news of the day”— was entirely created by the telegraph (and since amplified by newer media)… The news of the day is a figment of our technological imagination. … Cultures without speed-of-light media -— let us say, cultures in which smoke signals are the most efficient space-conquering tool available -— do not have news of the day.

It is not really a deep insight to say that the news of the minute, the “trending” news is something we have created with the systems we have built. Lots has (somewhat rightly) focused on Facebook and Google, but the Open Web is much larger than that.

We’ve lowered the barrier to publishing. We’ve changed the medium through which we express truth, but we haven’t really changed the norms or means by which we enable readers to judge truth.

Let’s compare how truth is perceived in some different mediums:
1. Newspaper journalistic standards in the 1980s (for instance) relied on “balance” and “unbiased” language and had separate sections for opinion. All of this got published by some “reputable” source. Some publisher with a long history that was known to the reader. And typically there was not really a lot of competition within any particular geographic region (though this hasn’t always been true) so it was pretty easy to know the range of writers and publishers.
2. Scientific journals rest on citations and peer review. Ostensibly the data/methods are all available so someone could reproduce the experiments. But doing so is often not easy. The perceived truth is determined both by the reputation of the journal (and by proxy, who reviewed it) as well as explicitly referencing other papers that may disagree. A paper that ignores existing literature is unlikely to get past reviewers.
3. For an article on the Web we borrow a lot of our norms from (1) and (2). We have also added a social validation of truth by displaying a count of likes, the number of comments, or the number of people who have shared an article. Rarely is anything shown about the people providing the social validation other than a simple count. Sometimes it is also where the content ranks on in a search, or perhaps what the post is linking to. But the text of a link and the entire content is entirely within the writers control.

Obviously, for all of these cases I am ignoring lots of background on all the work that people do in research, investigation, validation, and writing. The point here is not about what went into publishing it, but rather what does a new reader see? Why does a reader trust it? Of course the reader can judge the written evidence for themselves, but we know of a huge list of cognitive biases that the reader must contend with. Additionally, it takes a lot of time to research the truth of an article.

Both (1) and (2) do nothing to handle the case where the author has simply made a mistake. They have mechanisms for referring to articles published before the current one, but the web is capable of dynamically updating to refer to things published afterwards. An articles does not need to be static.

How do we take the best of (1) and (2) and adapt them into a world where the reader can better judge truth in (3)?

I don’t really have an answer. I’m not sure these are even the right questions, but let’s try an idea, right here and now since this post is currently asking you to determine its validity. Don’t just judge just my words. Judge my words against the words of others in the world. You’ve read this far, let’s add some related content to this article and see how it affects your personal search for the truth. Then let’s reconvene below and discuss some more…

 

Onward…

How has your perspective of this post changed? Did you open any of the links? Did you get lost in them? Were you overwhelmed by them? Do you feel that you can more accurately judge truth? Do you find my ideas more valid or less valid? Getting back to my click-bait headline: Is this post in accordance with fact or reality (true)?

I haven’t actually read all of those posts. I looked at a few. The Stanford Web Credibility Project from 2002 was very interesting and relevant. Its top recommendation is to:

1. Make it easy to verify the accuracy of the information on your site.

What if in order for a writer’s opinion or reporting of news to be considered a part of humanity’s search for truth that writer is expected to publish it alongside others’ content? What if publishers are expected to give others traffic in order for your words to have any weight? Why should I care what you have to say if you’re afraid to algorithmically link me to other people who are providing other opinions/insights? What if readers learn to instantly dismiss any article that is not willing to automatically link to others?

Displaying related content is a fundamental part of the web now, but so far we have mostly only used it to keep users on our own sites, or to make money with advertisements. Maybe there is another use case? Yes, the user could go to a search engine, but maybe we can improve the truth seeker’s user experience beyond that.

This related content would not need to be static. As posts link to yours, they may get weighted more heavily and show up on your post. So your post does not only link backward in time, it is a living document providing a link to how others have built on your work.

Some systems already try to do this. WordPress has pingbacks where a link from some other site generates a comment on the site it is linking to. It is an attempt to keep an old post connected to the conversation, but there is no weighting of it relative to others. It doesn’t really scale for a very popular post. And a post that is two hops back in the chain is not necessarily considered.

Of course a related content system still has potential problems of bias due to who controls the algorithms. Open sourcing the algorithms would help, as would having a standard mechanism where multiple providers can provide the service in a compatible way. Building trust here would be hard. Getting publishers to trust content from competing publishers to be inserted into their page would be especially difficult.

But maybe by changing the norms through which we judge truth we can get back to seeking truth together. Or maybe there are other ideas for how we should be presenting our articles to help humanity find truth.

 

Technology Apathy

Someone is wrong on the Internet.

Sure, personal apathy and sarcasm in the face of lots of people being wrong is understandable. Life is busy, and it takes a lot of energy to discuss something. But have we let our own apathy to that situation seep into the systems on which our civilization is built?

 

Struggling with Content Ordering

I agree in freedom of speech. I agree in democratizing publishing. I agree with giving a voice to everyone with as small a barrier to entry as possible. I’m not sure anymore what I think about “neutral” algorithms, code, and design. Optimizing only for what users interact with, or click on or what can be measured is always problematic, but maybe its bigger than that.

Neutral unbiased ranking of content is what is currently building and reinforcing the bubbles on the Web. Treating one like as being just as important as another, one comment as just as important as the next. Treating one vocal community’s ideas as just as important as a comment by someone who’s spent their life focused on deeply studying something. Letting that vocal community then shape and reinforce the opinion and content of the web. Forcing others to spend their time fighting back because “someone is wrong on the Internet”. The lack of context around who is speaking is glaring.

If the medium is the message, then what does it say that our mediums use collaborative filtering so that users never see anything other than what is within their own bubble?

But simple reverse chronological sorting fails on so many levels. It is transparent and easy to implement, but it does nothing to combat information overload. Nothing to engage users.  It optimizes for people who have the time to keep up with some particular stream of content. Or for those who are online all the time and so can keep up with an infinite stream. It can only ever engage those users who are already super engaged with that topic or website. A chronologically sorted website seems unlikely to create the level of engagement that a site like Facebook creates by optimizing to keep users within their own bubbles.

 

No Handlebars

Was listening to the Flobots earlier on a run. Feels very appropriate to be thinking about the impact of technology on society and how to do better.

Uniform priors now seem much less appropriate to me than they used to. Time for this blog to be less neutral also. 

Great Links to Lucene/Solr Revolution 2015

A great list of links to slides from Mani Siva’s blog. A lot of things I’m currently thinking about: overlaying graphs on Elasticsearch to do content re-ranking, improving search relevancy, what is “fairness” in ranking and how you display content.

 

One of the annual conferences that I always look forward to is Lucene/Solr Revolution. The reason is not only because of highly technical nature of the conference, but also you can get a glimpse of how future of search is evolving in the open and how Solr is being pushed to its limits to handle […]

via Lucene/Solr Revolution 2015 — Mani Siva’s blog

The Walsh Standard v Automattic Creed

I’m reading Bill Walsh’s book The Score Takes Care of Itself on his methodology for getting the San Francisco 49ers to perform at a high level in the 1980s (and win 3 Super Bowls in the process), and I found it interesting how closely his Standard of Performance matches up against the Automattic Creed. I thought I would compare the two: Walsh’s clause in black, relavant Automattic line(s) in red, and some notes from me.

Exhibit a ferocious and intelligently applied work ethic directed at continual improvement;

I will never stop learning.

…the only way to get there is by putting one foot in front of another every day.

In both cases the first line is about learning.

demonstrate respect for each person in the organization and the work he or she does;

I will never pass up an opportunity to help out a colleague, and I’ll remember the days before I knew everything.

Not really a perfect match, but to help someone with humility implies respecting them and who they are.

be deeply committed to learning and teaching, which means increasing my own expertise;

I will never stop learning.

I will never pass up an opportunity to help out a colleague, and I’ll remember the days before I knew everything.

Learning and teaching go hand in hand.

be fair;

I will build our business sustainably through passionate and loyal customers.

I think its a stretch to say that the Creed mentions fairness so openly. But this line captures the fairness we strive to apply to our customers.

demonstrate character;

Really the whole Automattic Creed is about character. Being written in the first person means it is defining the character that we are all agreeing to try and match.

honor the direct connection between details and improvement, and relentlessly seek the latter;

I will never stop learning.

I am in a marathon, not a sprint, and no matter how far away the goal is, the only way to get there is by putting one foot in front of another every day

Systematic learning. I like Walsh’s focus on the details mattering though.

show self-control, especially where it counts most— under pressure;

I am more motivated by impact than money, and I know that Open Source is one of the most powerful ideas of our generation.

Choosing what to work on and how to work on it is all about self control.

demonstrate and prize loyalty;

We don’t really go for loyalty oaths. We have a great retention rate though and really quite a lot of loyalty and friendship. Getting together with Automatticians feels like getting together with family.

use positive language and have a positive attitude;

I’ll remember the days before I knew everything

This is really the closest thing we have to mentioning a positive attitude in the Creed.

take pride in my effort as an entity separate from the result of that effort;

Open Source is one of the most powerful ideas of our generation

I guess that kinda works… Again not strong overlap. “Pride” is actually the first line in the Automattic Designer’s Creed.

be willing to go the extra distance for the organization;

I am in a marathon, not a sprint

I think there is a pretty important difference in philosophy here. Walsh is pretty strongly into personal sacrifice in what I would call an unsustainable way — “If you’re up at 3 A.M. every night talking into a tape recorder and writing notes on scraps of paper, have a knot in your stomach and a rash on your skin, are losing sleep and losing touch with your wife and kids, have no appetite or sense of humor, and feel that everything might turn out wrong, then you’re probably doing the job.”

To me you are not doing the job at all. You’re going to write terrible code, poorly think it through, and have a really hard time sustaining this pace. Everyone has crunchtimes, but this is not a sustainable way to live. Nor is it a sustainable way to build products. I have similar problems with the Agile methodology and its focus on “sprints”.

Ironically though, I am writing this post when I should be asleep.

deal appropriately with victory and defeat, adulation and humiliation (don’t get crazy with victory nor dysfunctional with loss);

Given time, there is no problem that’s insurmountable.

Keep working at it, don’t give up. This can be really hard when you spend months fighting to fix one scaling problem after another and it is impossible to know where the end is.

promote internal communication that is both open and substantive (especially under stress);

I will communicate as much as possible, because it’s the oxygen of a distributed company

Open communication is the type of communication that really matters.

seek poise in myself and those I lead;

No real direct comparison. To me poise is keeping your cool when you realize that some code you launched is causing a performance problem about to bring down WordPress.com and how do you diligently and swiftly solve the problem.

put the team’s welfare and priorities ahead of my own;

I don’t really want a similar line in the Creed. Yes, I sacrifice some of the things I would love to be working on in order to pursue Automattic’s goals, but my welfare and priorities are pretty well aligned with the company’s.

 

maintain an ongoing level of concentration and focus that is abnormally high;

I am in a marathon, not a sprint, and no matter how far away the goal is, the only way to get there is by putting one foot in front of another every day

To me the level of concentration needed is to be able to focus on what is most important, say ‘no’ to the sorta important things, and get up the next day and make that correct decision yet again. I don’t make the correct decision every day, but hopefully I will quickly recognize when I make the wrong one.

and make sacrifice and commitment the organization’s trademark.

Given time, there is no problem that’s insurmountable

Again Walsh focuses a lot on sacrifice. I think that’s the wrong thing to focus on. There is certainly some involved in any endeavor, but the way he discusses it in his Standard of Performance, and elsewhere in the book doesn’t feel very sustainable.


 

There’s some interesting differences between the two, but the focus on teaching, openness, and being systematic in making progress stand out pretty strongly. For reference, here is the entire Automattic Creed:

I will never stop learning. I won’t just work on things that are assigned to me. I know there’s no such thing as a status quo. I will build our business sustainably through passionate and loyal customers. I will never pass up an opportunity to help out a colleague, and I’ll remember the days before I knew everything. I am more motivated by impact than money, and I know that Open Source is one of the most powerful ideas of our generation. I will communicate as much as possible, because it’s the oxygen of a distributed company. I am in a marathon, not a sprint, and no matter how far away the goal is, the only way to get there is by putting one foot in front of another every day. Given time, there is no problem that’s insurmountable.