Young Hands Club

December 2, 2019

JFW review, week of Nov 25 2019

Filed under: Jacob Welsh — Jacob Welsh @ 6:05 a.m.

This week was a change of pace in several ways. My plan was packed (no change there!), Robinson and our main clients were out, and coding work had shaped up as the priority. Compared to my past intervals of heavy solitary work, this one had much more time in reading and writing human text relative to code. The TMSR-OS project came front and center as MP timed out on waiting for Trinque and offered Robinson the management role. On my end this meant expediting publication of my own work in the space as well as my other technical items. I set about finishing my ongoing article series and digging into the rest with vigor, and also boosted my forum reading and discussion time. It's unclear if I've as yet absorbed the lessons of Kafka's mouse, though I had fun attempting the translation.

I found Robinson even more tied up than anticipated, and I was surprised by his request for a third wallet article in addition to the time estimates already owed. In my mind, time was already tight, the tasks were as clear as they could be at that stage, and I just needed to get in the focused time on the coding. What ultimately unblocked me was setting the requested writing aside and just proceeding as if to code; this ended up stimulating the lines of thought necessary to clarify the spec and I was then able to write it. I think it ended up for the best to have taken the time, especially given the thought-provoking comment thread with MP that followed.

I managed to attend everything in my plan at least to a substantial degree, and some past debts I just couldn't stand anymore such as my blog theme. I made heavier use of detailed schedules to get through each day, including ending them in time to ease myself into an earlier sleep cycle -- with a big exception of today, what can I say. In several instances I found myself at least somewhat deliberately choosing to disregard the planned time blocks and push ahead with the task I was engaged in.

The work and discussion time ended up at 74.6 hours; still, morale stayed high, I got in at least some of my evening walks, ate simple but hearty meals, and managed some meatspace social time. Unfortunately I didn't manage my proposed wallet milestone; I've been updating Robinson about the work but haven't heard much back as yet. And this review is late; I'd scheduled it to be started earlier, but I still struggle to find the necessary pressure internally without an external deadline looming.

3 Comments »

  1. "Work and discussion time" is poorly worded, as if communication isn't part of work; more like "work time including discussions and background reading".

    Comment by Jacob Welsh — December 2, 2019 @ 6:41 a.m.

  2. "just proceeding as if to code" - what do you mean here?

    Re lack of internal motivation - this does read more like a report than a review and I doubt you have much motivation for reporting, yes. How about you actually make those reviews for yourself first of all?

    Comment by Diana Coman — December 2, 2019 @ 7:54 a.m.

  3. jfw: diana_coman: thinking about the "what do you mean here" now, might be easier discussed here. How to put it... there was a kind of shift in framing of my thought process
    jfw: The tasks themselves consist mostly of thinking, and the planning of the tasks likewise ...
    diana_coman: jfw: do you mean the coding tasks?
    jfw: right. so, how was I to come up with a solid plan for what to code, before thinking further about what the code itself needs
    jfw: the two need to feed back into each other as I see it
    jfw: (spec and implementation)

    diana_coman: sure, that's fine and just like with any other piece of writing: at times you need to do more thinking before being able to write
    diana_coman: there's no interdiction on thinking about code, quite on the contrary, the writing of spec is after all a form of "thinking about code" too
    diana_coman: the potentially iffy part is at "what the code itself needs"

    jfw: yeah should be more like, what the code needs to do to solve the problem, what inputs it therefore needs and so on
    diana_coman: because code is not exactly having much to say about needs of its own; but to the extent that you mean "what is still needed for this to be useful", sure.
    diana_coman: there, precisely :)

    jfw: diana_coman: and re "this does read more like a report than a review" - do you recall my past reviews being better in this regard - being more for myself? I'll go back over them and see if I can spot the difference.
    diana_coman: jfw: yes, they were certainly more actively reviewing, you know? it might be that you simply left this one so late + rushed it so much that there was no time & inclination to review anything but that's the effect already, not the root cause.
    diana_coman: whether you did them more for yourself or not, only you can tell really; my suggestion here was simply to point out to you that ultimately they are meant to be of most use to you really.

    diana_coman: and yeah, I quite think you are not very fond of reporting otherwise :P
    diana_coman: jfw: or are you?
    jfw: hm. I'm tending to think it's more the reviewing I'm not fond of and so got displaced by reporting when I had to grab at something
    diana_coman: well, it is easier for sure so that part I can see, yes.

    jfw: so yeah, will do that rereading and bear in mind that they're for me.
    jfw: thx
    diana_coman: cool, np.

    Comment by Jacob Welsh — December 2, 2019 @ 9:14 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Work on what matters, so you matter too.