Scrum At Scale and Society

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

As per my last post I said I will be talking more (but not entirely) about politics. And if you think I’m going to jump into something big, right now, not really. Well I kind of am. Because I want to share something that I find useful in thinking about society, politics, and how we get things done at scale.

It won’t surprise you that it’s about Agile methods, but one that affects my politics – and might give you a few ideas.

For anyone not familiar with Agile (a vanishingly small number of people who read me as I talk about it a lot), it’s an approach to work, started in software, about reasonably-sized teams working in short increments. The popular method is Scrum, where teams take a list of priorities, tackle a limited set over a short time, and then review and do it all over again. I’ve applied it to writing, art, and more.

But as you may guess, small teams is like about 5 people give or take. So how do you do a big project? Well someone invented Scrum At Scale. You have teams, but team leads from those team meet on their OWN Scrum teams to coordinate. Bigger project? Then you have teams of team leads of team leads, and pile it as high as possible. It’s pretty cool and isn’t the giant process-haul that rival SAFE is.

It also affected my view of politics.

First, one of the problems of politics is non-participation or exclusion. To be part of society is to be part of it, like it or not. At the same time plenty of people want to exclude others to get their own “selectorate” to make holding power easier, and of course usually screwing over everyone else. Scrum at Scale made me realize how important it is for people to be involved and involved at multiple levels.

You should pay attention to your community, but also to your state/province, federal, and the world and be involved. If necessary hold office even if it’s an informal community thing. Good leaders should also be trusted if they can and have held positions at lower levels and have actually done something. I’m no military adventurist by a long shot, but there’s a reason I sometimes vote for ex-mils as well as doctors, emergency workers, etc.

Scrum at Scale is about being involved and being in touch among levels. A team lead on the lowest level scrum team might be a representative on one team, and the team above that, and so on. That’s the kind of thing software development or society needs – integration of people.

But there’s one more factor as well. Scrum of Scrums, especially, emphasizes communicating problems upward. What a team below can’t solve, the team above tries to tackle, and so on up the chain. Eventually unsolvable problems land on a leadership group, and if no one else can fix them that’s their job.

Problems go up, solutions come down. If you’ve ever seen politicians try to solve issues that they usually make up you realize how important this idea is. The higher up the chain you are the more you should help fix the unfixable things below. If no problems come up then you keep things running, which is important because I can say quite cynically many a problem is caused by a politician trying to keep their job.

Honestly, a lot of my politics are influenced by things that aren’t seen as political – project management, biology, and so on. But as I’ve noted before everything is really political, so we should learn from everything.

Steven Savage

It’s The Ones We Noticed

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

People developing psychosis while using Chat GPT has been in the news a lot. Well, the latest story is about an Open AI investor who seemed to lose it in real time, leading to shall we say concerns. The gentleman in question seemed to spiral into thinking the world was like the famous SCP Foundation collective work.

Of course people were a little concerned. A big investor AI losing his mind isn’t exactly building confidence in the product or the company. Or for that matter, investing.

But let me gently suggest that the real concern is that this is the one we noticed.

This is not to say all sorts of AI bigwigs and investors are losing their minds – I think some of them have other problems or lost their minds for different reasons. This isn’t to say the majority of people using AI are going to go off into some extreme mental tangent. The problem is that AI, having been introduced recently, is going to have impacts on mental health that will be hard to recognize because this is all happening so fast.

Look, AI came on quick. In some ways I consider that quite insidious as it’s clear everyone jumped on board looking for the next big thing. In some ways it’s understandable because, all critiques aside (including my own), some of it is cool and interesting. But like a lot of things we didn’t ask what the repercussion might be, which has been a bit of a problem since around about the internal combustion engine.

So now that we have examples of people losing their minds – and developing delusions of grandeur – due to AI, what are we missing?

It might not be as bad as the cases that make the news – no founding a religion or creating some metafiction roleplay that’s too real to you. But a bit of an extra weird belief, that strange thing you’re convinced on, something that’s not as noticeable but too far. Remember all the people who got into some weird conspiracies online? Yeah, well, we’ve automated that.

We’re also not looking for it and maybe it’s time we do – what kind of mental challenges are people developing due to AI that we’re not looking for?

There might not even be anything – these cases may just be unfortunate ones that stand out. But I’d really kind of like to know, especially as the technology spreads, and as you know I think it’s spreading unwisely.

Steven Savage

Broken At The Top

(This column is posted at www.StevenSavage.com, Steve’s Tumblr, and Pillowfort.  Find out more at my newsletter, and all my social media at my linktr.ee)

This is another one of those columns where I have to say “if you think you know what/who inspired it, you’re wrong.” So, you’re wrong, or at least not 100% right about how this column came about. Well except, yes, some of this still comes from The Unaccountability Machine, but hey that’s gonna be playing on my mind for a few more months.

So I was wondering why do so many “leaders” seem absolutely broken as people? How do they make these poor decisions, hurt people, get arrested for hideous crimes, and so on? How do you rise to the top and be so messed up? I mean I sort of get some greed and megalomania, but come on.

Worse, these people put us in danger. How much power is in the hands of people who are so greedy, biases, narcissistic, and worse? We’re facing a lot of crises right now and too many leaders are dangerous to our survival – they are the crisis.

Then I realized as this played with idea, that’s not actually the thing to contemplate at this moment in history.

The question right now is not why too many of our leaders are broken people. The question is what do we do about it because now’s not the time to play therapist.

Right now we’ve got problems to solve, and there are a lot of them. Climate change, microplastics, financial capture, and more all are bearing down on us. We need to take as much power as much as possible, and ensure the leaders and experts we have are actually on the side of humanity.

This is necessary not just to fix problems but also to make sure we stop just letting our “leaders” hande it. We’ve seen a bunch of them are broken, from weird billionaires to royal families somehow still treating us as peasants. We need to fix crap now and firewall against any a-hole coming alone to screw up a better or at least less terrible world.

Even if some leaders are just firewalls against some actual psycho taking over, its better than, well, the psycho.

A thing I learned from looking back on the old disciplines of cybernetics (Hello, Unaccountabiliy Machine) is that sometimes you just stop asking why something happens and ask what goes into a system and what comes out. There are times to just check your inputs and outputs because the system is too complex or you don’t have time (or you don’t care).

Besides, any analysis of our culture problems and leadership pathologies could take time. Sure we could analyze historical comparisons, but how well do they map across time and culture? We could do psychology but the key thing is we have a-holes now so except how to identify, isolate, or change them we’re not quite as concerned. Whatever is in the Broken Leadership Box, it’s going to take time we don’t have to sort it out.

I find this attitude liberating. I don’t have to play therapist to whatever politician, priest, pundit, or plutocrat is out there except to make sure they can’t hurt people. We can analyze them at our leisure or when we have time.

Sometimes the machine puts jerks in charge. You tweak the inputs to get less jerks before you crack the case to look inside.

Steven Savage