Now the question is: does Elon have enough technical expertise (or access to such) to be able to judge if a collection of assorted 10 screenshots without context of some GDoc pages, some shoddy PoC code and comments on RFCs is up to par with his bar of what a Staff Software Engineer title should produce? I highly doubt it.
It's not about showing evidence of work, it's that technical work can differ so much depending on context and constraints that it's impossible to demonstrate its value in such a reductive way, it's simple and clear stupidity to even ask to be demonstrated that way.
To your point, if I started as new manager for a team and the TL said they mostly wrote RFCs and design docs, my next question would be whether those docs led to an actual implementation (by orher people is ok). IF it turned out they write go-nowhere docs and sit in meetings giving obvious advice all day, then I’ll flag it as a potential problem that needs deeper investigation.
Now as a manager and sometimes architect, no code from me but I still review code and spend time stopping bad ideas, getting teams to work together, and all that fun stuff. But I still regard code merged into master, as the ultimate tangible of our work.
So, you DO understand what we're trying to say on this thread. I don't get why you are defending this measure as a valid way to measure engineers
As a manager, it’s not in my job description anymore. And when I put on an architect hat, my output is design docs and aligning many different opinions between teams. Also, the senior-most people on my team are no longer coding 100% of their time (they’re designing, reviewing, mentoring) and that’s obviously ok and good.
...But if >50% my team spends every week only mentoring others and attending meetings and writing design docs (as someone else suggested here), I think it would be appropriate to ask what the heck is going on. The idea that for a typical rank-and-file developer (not the TL, manager, architect, etc) that they should be seen as productive software developers without being able to show even a handful of code examples over the course of a year, I’m sorry but I just don’t understand how such a software org would ever actually function.
If you are mentioning a previous comment of mine [1] in this thread I think you're grossly misrepresenting my words. And if so I definitely take offense in that as it's not only uncharitable, it's completely missing the point and reducing a brief expansion based on one of your questions to "only attending meetings and writing design docs", something I've never mentioned in the hypothetical scenario you raised.
I expect my assumptions are wrong because if not I'd definitely say you're not fit to be a leader or architect of anything.
Like, yeah of course the top engineers find themselves less and less hands-on-keyboard as they turn more to technical leadership roles. But some people seem to be arguing that code isn’t the bread and butter work for majority of developers. Who’s doing the actual work then, is my question for them.
I don't think anyone actually said that.
I wrote:
> In an org with thousands of software engineers, shouldn’t most of them be writing code?
And this person's reply was:
> no, I don't think most of them should be writing code
> I wouldn't put any kind of quantifier on it. I'm willing to bet most, if not all Twitter developers were above average across the industry and were producing work of value.
Elon’s a jerk, but this thread seems to be full of people saying “I deliver value even though I can’t actually demonstrate any evidence of it.”