Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Dr. Cat Hicks (grimalkina@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 12-Nov-2024 04:26:41 JST Dr. Cat Hicks

   • Sue Smith

   Dear friends, if today is hard and what your soul needs is a comfort-motivation-distraction, if you want to listen to a thoughtful conversation about how we can value each other better and support each other more in tech, we just released a new Change, Technically episode with @sue

   We discuss organizing around problems instead of sorting by tools, why education doesn't magically fix everything, and more. It's a long, gentle listen this time. ❤️

   https://www.changetechnically.fyi/2396236/episodes/16081177-what-really-matters-in-software

   • Embed this notice
     Dr. Cat Hicks (grimalkina@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 12-Nov-2024 05:59:37 JST Dr. Cat Hicks

     in reply to

     • George Dinwiddie
     • Sue Smith
     • Rebecca Wirfs-Brock

     @gdinwiddie @sue @rebeccawb it does really surprise me how averse to double blind review many software/eng research communities seem to be. Many obvious disadvantages from this that other fields have strongly organized around preventing.

   • Embed this notice
     Rebecca Wirfs-Brock (rebeccawb@discuss.systems)'s status on Tuesday, 12-Nov-2024 05:59:38 JST Rebecca Wirfs-Brock

     in reply to

     • George Dinwiddie
     • Sue Smith

     @gdinwiddie @grimalkina @sue ... I think it was a matter of professional reputation. Known quantities are, well, known quantities. Unknown quantities are, well, unknown.

     Panels were definitely risk adverse.

     Some soon to be minted PhDs were on the panel as well...recommended by their profs so they could learn how to write good proposals. The thing about proposals is that they tended to overhype the potential impact. And being a skeptic, I didn't buy it.

     I'm not sure what those panelists learned, but they thought being a reviewer was good experience.

     Me? I was so intrigued by how research was funded that I wanted to do it again. Unfortunately, my other work travels didn't make it possible. Now, if I weren't an IEEE sw design columnist, I would never have been asked to participate, I'm sure of that.

   • Embed this notice
     George Dinwiddie (gdinwiddie@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 12-Nov-2024 05:59:38 JST George Dinwiddie

     in reply to

     • Sue Smith
     • Rebecca Wirfs-Brock

     @sue @rebeccawb @grimalkina My point is that they are less “known quantity” than “known reputation.” That’s what makes it easier.

     It’s kinda like the old saying “nobody ever gets fired for recommending IBM.”

     Robert Link repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     George Dinwiddie (gdinwiddie@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 12-Nov-2024 05:59:39 JST George Dinwiddie

     in reply to

     • Sue Smith
     • Rebecca Wirfs-Brock

     @rebeccawb @grimalkina @sue
     Another example of how advertising is given more weight than substance.

   • Embed this notice
     George Dinwiddie (gdinwiddie@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 12-Nov-2024 05:59:40 JST George Dinwiddie

     in reply to

     • Sue Smith

     @grimalkina @sue
     WRT selection, we use a random selection process at AgileDC (https://www.agiledc.org/https/wwwagiledcorg/agiledc-program-selection) and the results are wonderful. It's also much easier.

   • Embed this notice
     Dr. Cat Hicks (grimalkina@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 12-Nov-2024 05:59:40 JST Dr. Cat Hicks

     in reply to

     • George Dinwiddie
     • Sue Smith

     @gdinwiddie @sue oh my goodness, hierarchical intentionally designed selection--> but then random selection, my DREAM I am so excited to have this as an example!

   • Embed this notice
     George Dinwiddie (gdinwiddie@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 12-Nov-2024 05:59:40 JST George Dinwiddie

     in reply to

     • Sue Smith

     @grimalkina @sue
     I'm not sure I have the links to our sources of this idea, but at NIH they found that they got more value from their research bucks using a lottery than by having "experts" select from the grant proposals. The experts are attracted to more of the same, rather than new ideas.

   • Embed this notice
     Rebecca Wirfs-Brock (rebeccawb@discuss.systems)'s status on Tuesday, 12-Nov-2024 05:59:40 JST Rebecca Wirfs-Brock

     in reply to

     • George Dinwiddie
     • Sue Smith

     @gdinwiddie @grimalkina @sue I was on a sw design nsf panel once (when I was the design columnist for IEEE Software). I was the contrary one, being the only non-academic, who wasn't cowed by submissions that seemed not that interesting submitted by known folks.

     It was an interesting experience. Definitely, it is "easier" to go with the status quo than to champion new and novel research