| whaack: | diana_coman: I wasn't around the terminal much this week and don't have anything to report for the week's review (which is going to be 1 day late along with the plan.) | [01:48] |
| jfw: | I thought about doing the review and plan on Fri and Sat, but went instead on impulse to push through with my TRB patching work (which went well; article upcoming). Then I thought about doing it today, but figured that'd be continuing to support the habit of imagining time can be freely dug up out of sleep/leisure/whatever. I'll do them tomorrow. | [02:36] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: by the sounds of it there's no need for all the trouble of an article on it - the review seems to be "took holidays" so that much you already said above; as to the plan - there was one you made last week but you made it for keeping up the appearances, nothing more so why bother making yet another one this week? | [04:38] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: drop that irc data collection whatever since it's clearly dead anyway, forget about it; on my side I'll consider it failed and burried, half a year was more than enough time for it, I'm not going to wait endlessly. | [04:41] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: write on your blog what articles you want, see if you find there any motivation to keep to it for real. | [04:41] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: so much thinking about it is probably what kills it in the first place and how it ends up pushed in the night; the bigger question though is - why do them at all anyway? | [04:42] |
| diana_coman: | and talking of which, looking at the list there, it turns out there's lobbes who found the time to communicate clearly and stick to it, there's jfw who found at least at last possible minute the time to communicate what's going on, there's whaack who keeps saying that work would be nice but fun is more fun so there's at least clarity and then there's nothing from BingoBoingo and from dorion. | [04:48] |
| diana_coman: | so I gather that it's lobbes and jfw that still find any use for it; I'll move the rest to hopefuls - you can still write or not write, talk or not talk, as you did until now but there's at least no need anymore for all this pretense of deadlines and wanting any feedback or finding it useful or whatever else. | [04:54] |
| diana_coman: | if any of you wants out of it entirely, just let me know. | [04:56] |
| diana_coman: | !o uptime | [07:01] |
| ossabot: | diana_coman: time since my last reconnect : 9d 21h 19m | [07:01] |
| diana_coman: | !!up #ossasepia sonofawitch | [08:08] |
| deedbot: | sonofawitch voiced for 30 minutes. | [08:08] |
| diana_coman: | !s hi | [08:08] |
| diana_coman: | !s reconnect | [08:08] |
| diana_coman: | !s quit | [08:09] |
| diana_coman: | !!up sonofawitch | [08:18] |
| deedbot: | You may not !!up yourself. | [08:18] |
| diana_coman: | !!up #ossasepia sonofawitch | [08:18] |
| deedbot: | sonofawitch voiced for 30 minutes. | [08:18] |
| diana_coman: | !s hi | [08:18] |
| sonofawitch: | Hello there, diana_coman | [08:18] |
| diana_coman: | !s reconnect | [08:18] |
| diana_coman: | nice; seems there might still be some bits to iron out on timeouts/errors reading from the socket but otherwise awk-bot seems to do the job just fine. | [08:20] |
| diana_coman: | feel free to poke it with !s - it should not react/answer to anyone other than me, so far. | [08:20] |
| whaack: | http://ossasepia.com/2020/04/22/ossasepia-logs-for-13-Apr-2020#1024180 ack. | [12:21] |
| ossabot: | Logged on 2020-04-13 04:41:58 diana_coman: whaack: write on your blog what articles you want, see if you find there any motivation to keep to it for real. | [12:21] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: there's also a comment on yh.club for you. | [16:11] |
| diana_coman: | cruciform: you should be able to !!up yourself now, let me know if it's still not working. | [16:12] |
| diana_coman: | !!up #ossasepia cruciform | [16:17] |
| deedbot: | cruciform voiced for 30 minutes. | [16:17] |
| diana_coman: | cruciform: try it in chan please | [16:17] |
| cruciform: | !!up #ossasepia cruciform | [16:18] |
| deedbot: | You may not !!up yourself. | [16:18] |
| diana_coman: | thanks. | [16:18] |
| diana_coman: | cruciform: I gave you voice via ChanServ, should remain on unless you disconnect; at any rate, just ping me in pm if you can't get voice otherwise; it will get sorted one way or another. | [16:19] |
| cruciform: | diana_coman, great, thanks | [16:19] |
| diana_coman: | np | [16:20] |
| diana_coman: | lru: ask for voice in pm if you are ever around and want to talk. | [16:21] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: responded to the comment as well. | [16:32] |
| jfw: | diana_coman: well here I am "thinking" again about that bigger question | [16:32] |
| ossabot: | Logged on 2020-04-13 04:42:56 diana_coman: jfw: so much thinking about it is probably what kills it in the first place and how it ends up pushed in the night; the bigger question though is - why do them at all anyway? | [16:32] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: you can also simply *choose* either a. do them (and then JUST do them, without any further thinking) or b. not do them (and then idem, just no more thinking of that sort either) | [16:35] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: or can't you ? lolz | [16:40] |
| jfw: | diana_coman: simply choosing to just do them just doesn't seem to end up so simple! | [16:41] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: and answered. | [16:41] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: what do you mean? | [16:41] |
| jfw: | if I could do them just like that, by deciding to, then I can't say why I don't. | [16:43] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: eh, because you don't decide to, as simple as that; just like earlier that "thinking about doing them on Friday and Saturday" was more likely "I did remember about them and about the fact that I should do them but..." | [16:46] |
| jfw: | I can say that the reason to do them at all is to be helpful to myself, and to let you see what's happening so your feedback can help too. And that *has* been helpful - but I can't say I've done it gladly or really made the most of it | [16:46] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: right; why not gladly? | [16:47] |
| diana_coman: | kicks deedbot | [16:47] |
| jfw: | diana_coman: maybe there's parts of me that don't want to change | [16:48] |
| diana_coman: | basically uhm, why *not* be glad about something that is helpful? | [16:48] |
| diana_coman: | yeah, well, nothing ever *wants* (as in naturally would aka in turn, easiest path/lowest resistance) to change, sure; | [16:49] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: listen, it turns out that you managed nevertheless to decide and just come online at this 7pm utc daily, correct? | [16:49] |
| jfw: | yep | [16:50] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: so then, decide similarly to answer a set of questions in writing on Fridays at 6pm UTC (or some specific hour); for one hour; publish the result as the review; I suppose we can even do that live now if you haven't done the review for the past week anyway | [16:51] |
| diana_coman: | why does it even have to be anything more complicated than that, I have no idea. | [16:51] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: did you do the review for the past week meanwhile? | [16:52] |
| jfw: | laughs, doesn't have an idea either. And no, didn't meanwhile. | [16:52] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: right; so then, here's the link to your plan for last week - what's the status for each of the tasks 1-9? | [16:55] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: lol, do I need to ask specific questions for each so you don't spin on "the full status, what might that include"? | [16:58] |
| jfw: | 1: drive upgrade is done, via manual backup and restore, but backups not scripted for that machine (which it occurs to me is part of why I hadn't been using it much). 2 and 3 are done. I did some of 7 by email. No progress on the rest. | [16:59] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: did they take roughly the time listed in the plan or not ? | [17:00] |
| jfw: | They took quite a bit longer. | [17:00] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: by what approx factor? | [17:00] |
| diana_coman: | dorion: you around at all anymore? | [17:02] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: eh, if no idea then set it double or triple for now. | [17:02] |
| jfw: | hm, actually looks like the 6 hrs for #3 was close, came to about 7. Triple for #2. | [17:03] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: any idea why that far away on #2 or why it ended up taking way longer than you genuinely expected it will? | [17:04] |
| jfw: | I wasn't very clear at planning time what was involved in doing it or how prepared I was | [17:06] |
| diana_coman: | ok, so the conclusion there is to remember to apply that doubling factor at least, unless you are *really* sure you know the task very well indeed (as was the case for the trb patches which you clearly knew way more about) | [17:07] |
| jfw: | I also went to look through mod6's blog and leave a comment on what I'd done; apparently still in spam queue, naturally. | [17:07] |
| jfw: | alright | [17:07] |
| diana_coman: | myeah, last time I tried to comment on mod6's blog I couldn't even find a way to do so ,ugh | [17:07] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: adding up the time on those tasks that got done/worked on - what's the total and how does it compare to the total you set for work during the week? | [17:08] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: actually, hm, you worked in fact on something that wasn't in the plan, right? so what was that + what did you achieve there + add the time there too | [17:09] |
| jfw: | right, that included archiving ave1's blog, trying to round up the dependencies for the gnat recipes, finding it wasn't too clear what those were, tracking them down, and in the process generating a full download index for adacore and writing that up. | [17:11] |
| jfw: | will take a bit to sort through the time logs, let's see. | [17:11] |
| diana_coman: | what does that add up to, as time? | [17:11] |
| diana_coman: | will wait. | [17:12] |
| jfw: | oh yeah, there was also the cleanup and writeup of mp-wp patches. | [17:13] |
| diana_coman: | so instead of 4,5,6,8 and 9, you did the set above, more or less opportunistically let's say, fine; add it all up and see the totals anyway, for starters. | [17:15] |
| jfw: | mp-wp work + writeup 5h; ada work 5h; ada writeup 8.7h; ssd upgrade 3.8h; trb keccak tree 2.43h; trb patch revision & testing 6.73h; then more I hadn't mentioned here: testing mobile internet as a backup for irc + some email & chat that got lumped in: 2.2h; TRB SetHex investigation + writeup, 3.1h. Total: 37h | [17:28] |
| jfw: | hours specifically estimated on the plan came to 16 though this didn't include anticipated writing. | [17:29] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: so on one hand the total comes to a reasonable amount, slightly less than a 9to6 job, lol; otoh, your plan anyway covered only 16 hours so it was for starters a sort of half-plan at best, lol | [17:32] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: now look at the items on the list that didn't get done and answer *why* didn't they get done? starting with the scripts that are still missing for 1 | [17:33] |
| diana_coman: | it's just a question, meant to simply figure out - why didn't that get done? | [17:33] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: btw, since it took 20 minutes to just add the totals up, it sounds like you could script that part already, it's a bit too much time to take for what should be an automated report already, pretty much. | [17:35] |
| diana_coman: | (and having that automated report would possibly even help with doing the review to start with) | [17:36] |
| jfw: | (the hours there also don't include #o chat time.) They didn't get done because, well, I chose to spend more time on other things that came up | [17:36] |
| diana_coman: | eh, that's no answer, lol | [17:36] |
| jfw: | heh, didn't feel like one too. | [17:37] |
| diana_coman: | you spent time on manually backing that up but not on automating the process - why? | [17:37] |
| diana_coman: | dunno, you hate scripting backups or you don't consider worth scripting backups for *that* or whatever | [17:38] |
| diana_coman: | it wasn't burning! | [17:38] |
| jfw: | part of that was a bunch of data on the machine was itself redundant and didn't need a new backup... but yeah no reason that couldn't be put in a script | [17:38] |
| diana_coman: | the question is not why *not* script it, but rather why did you prefer to not script it, heh | [17:39] |
| diana_coman: | because you obviously did, for whatever reason. | [17:39] |
| diana_coman: | at 4, I can already answer the question as to why it didn't get done, lol | [17:39] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: how about 5, the v.sh/vtools study? | [17:40] |
| jfw: | I did have a guess about 4 the last time it didn't get done, heh. on 5, hm, didn't seem that important presently. | [17:42] |
| jfw: | likewise 6 | [17:42] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: cool; why did you put it in the plan though? | [17:42] |
| diana_coman: | ("had to put SOMETHING in the darned plan at 1 am!!") | [17:42] |
| jfw: | because I still find it interesting and something I'd like to move toward using. | [17:43] |
| jfw: | should have been a 'time permitting' then? | [17:44] |
| diana_coman: | ah, so it's more that the plan says what you'd find good and proper to do; the reality ofc shows what you actually *want* to do; and the review gets stuck most probably because it forces you to confront the huge gap between the 2, which is not an unknown but something you'd much rather not see ; esp not week after week ffs | [17:44] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: not necessarily; it depends on what you *decide* ie now the review shows all this; so you look at it all and draw some conclusions based on what you *want* to work on as changes for next week; this is basically the next question - what do you want to change for next week? | [17:46] |
| diana_coman: | ("nothing! it's all fine, honestly!") | [17:47] |
| jfw: | well there would be a partially-new list of tasks as usual but you're after higher level changes I think, hm. | [17:47] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: the change is in your approach, yes; the list of tasks aka the plan will get made one way or another depending on that, too. | [17:48] |
| diana_coman: | one point of the review is to actually look at what happened vs what you thought/planned to happen; another point is to give you information to decide on what you want to tackle to improve next. | [17:49] |
| diana_coman: | we are pretty much done with the first part, now on the second part of it. | [17:50] |
| jfw: | on one hand, it doesn't seem so bad that I got a bunch done that wasn't entirely what I set out to do. on the other, if there could be less of a gap, seems that would be nice. | [17:51] |
| jfw: | I could put more thought and thus detail into the plan | [17:52] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: the fact that you got that done is certainly not a bad thing in itself, no; and there's no reason to consider it bad either, that's not at all the point; but you should ask yourself why and how the gap and if it's helping your or doing quite the opposite | [17:52] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: bah, that's not much of an answer either, lol | [17:53] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: let's see, you have the tasks that were planned and not done - those get a good long look and since it seems that they didn't get done simply because you didn't consider them important/urgent/worth enough to do, they get either discarded plainly without further pretense or otherwise pick ONE and decide to do it as in DO IT, no more thinking and whatnot. | [17:55] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: then you also have the tasks that weren't planned but got done - those show the more likely directions you'll want to work this week on anyway; so you use them to inform your next plan so it's closer to reality (+ doesn't miss again half of what is actually going on) | [17:56] |
| diana_coman: | so from those two parts above you get your plan done in no time too; and then you can further add, if you really want to, some "time permitting/would be nice to" task but one at most, it's unlikely it will get done anyway. | [17:56] |
| jfw: | yeah those rarely do. | [17:57] |
| diana_coman: | the review is done, the plan should now take not more than 15 minutes, and that's it. | [17:57] |
| jfw: | I like the discarding or picking one approach. | [17:58] |
| diana_coman: | from 20:45 my hour when we started to 21:48 now, ~1hour including the overhead of talking to someone else | [17:58] |
| jfw: | I don't quite get though how the unplanned tasks show what I'll want to do next week, seeing as they're done now | [17:58] |
| diana_coman: | and you should automate a report from that time logging | [17:58] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: the *directions* of what you'll want to do next week, lol | [17:59] |
| jfw: | ah. | [17:59] |
| diana_coman: | and well, what was missing in this plan too (e.g. writing and #o time) | [17:59] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: re discarding do note that it should be explicit: those I am deciding I won't do and that's that; sure, you can review the list next week but for now this is what it is. | [18:00] |
| jfw: | re automating time reporting, the categorizing is what seems to be weak about my current format; many shifts are labeled a bit differently. | [18:02] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: also, if you think that the opportunistic task picking was due more to "oh, shiny" (or similar), you can anyways leave some time in the plan explicitly for unexpected/opportunistic tasks, nothing wrong with that either; but honestly, it looks to me like simply avoiding the ones you didn't actually want to do in the first place. | [18:02] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: so you found that out then and you can therefore standardise your labeling for next week/take care to use the exact same label, shouldn't be that hard either. | [18:02] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: I suppose overall what comes out of this exercise today is in fact that so far you haven't really meant to use the plan & review in any way to inform/support your improvement really; sure, if it "happened to be useful", fine; but otherwise, shrug, just-as-well or something. | [18:05] |
| diana_coman: | ("it can't be useful, it's just bureaucracy!!!") | [18:06] |
| diana_coman: | (since everyone is super special and flying by the seat of the pants is known to work best, given the amazing pants in question) | [18:06] |
| jfw: | kind of a vicious cycle, since that ensures it ends up as bureaucracy | [18:08] |
| diana_coman: | that's true as well, indeed | [18:09] |
| jfw: | diana_coman: will you share your answer why #4 didn't get done? | [18:09] |
| diana_coman: | basically bureaucracy *is* to start with precisely the corruption (by means of "will do in form!!!") of what would be otherwise useful if done competently rather than for the sake of appearances /form only. | [18:10] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: well, it's obviously a task you dislike a lot, got more or less "convinced" to add to the list as a result of relatives pushing for it but not out of your own decision that yes, you really, actually need it and moreover it turned out/promises to be a huge headache anyway so ... | [18:13] |
| diana_coman: | whether you have therefore a plan B/alternative or you just prefer to bury your head in sand about it is another question though. | [18:13] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: btw, why was there no progress on 8? no "necessary" at all or what? | [18:14] |
| jfw: | yeah, the plan B I decided on years ago was "make a buncha money, solves all these problems", but not having done that, need a plan A, heh. | [18:15] |
| jfw: | ah, re #8 I did give him some further suggestions on how to approach the breakdown of lessons into modules which I believe he found helpful. | [18:16] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: well, it can always also be "rather die than plan A", or anything else really, sure; basically whenever you don't like a pushed/proposed solution, the way about it is to look at the *problem* - that doesn't go away but yes, you can choose whatever solution you want for it, just choose it 200\%, explicitly and stick with it, the usual stuff. | [18:17] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: well, it doesn't sound like a lot of necessary indeed; tbh it all adds up to rather weird communications you have there too but anyways, that's certainly outside the scope of this discussion now | [18:18] |
| jfw: | I'll leave reporting on his status to him for now. | [18:19] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: just one more thing: there's a discussion answering your question in chan, you should add it there | [18:19] |
| jfw: | ah yes. | [18:19] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: and certainly re reporting, there's no point to indirect reporting anyway; the above was re jwrd (and still outside of scope so yeah, nothing on it now). | [18:20] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: anyways, will you write up and publish then today the review and plan based on the discussion above? | [18:21] |
| jfw: | I will. | [18:21] |
| jfw: | thank you | [18:21] |
| diana_coman: | does it give you a clear enough pattern for Friday? | [18:21] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: you're welcome. | [18:21] |
| jfw: | I suspect I'll get similar non-answers when asking myself things as when you ask them, but I can at least ask. | [18:23] |
| jfw: | but yes the pattern is clear | [18:24] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: so you'll publish the non answers and I'll laugh at it, what | [18:24] |
| jfw: | :) | [18:25] |
| diana_coman: | will be back tomorrow | [18:26] |
| feedbot: | http://ztkfg.com/2020/04/the-crowd-rejoices-as-pastor-who-decried-hysteria-dies-after-attending-mardi-gras/ << whaack -- The crowd rejoices as Pastor who decried 'hysteria' dies after attending Mardi Gras | [19:47] |
| feedbot: | http://trilema.com/2020/si-cum-mai-e-prin-carantinia/ << Trilema -- Si, cum mai e prin Carantinia ? | [20:59] |
| BingoBoingo: | diana_coman: Thank you. I'll still be around. | [22:04] |
Comments feed: RSS 2.0