Saturday, 15 January 2022

Letter to my future self 2022 edition

Reading my earlier “letter to my future self” from 2016 is interesting, because it still holds true, irrespective of how the pandemic changed the workplace: I wanted to work on delightful products with end-user impact, intelligent and intuitive products with a strong and clear vision. First class in technology, with information and technology as a “narrative”, meaning culture, and with a strong focus on operational excellence. Back then the SRE book had just not been released so it was hard to explain to classic “architects” what my role would be, yet I was keen to learn how to run things at scale. I wanted to be part of a global, distributed and diverse organization, a “swarm” with a focus on Asia, what I liked about consulting, not a manager.

All of that, and more, came true and I am grateful to Google for giving me this opportunity. I learned more about product development and excellence, customer empathy, tech leadership, reliability and eventually SRE than I ever expected - from the most brilliant and humble people I ever met. I was lucky to work on one the largest scalable, concurrent and low latency systems in the industry, diving deep into (data) observability and machine learning. Helping migrate some of them to Spanner I built up experience to help launch Cloud Spanner in Asia, and with that move from product technology management to strategic cloud engineering. I was again lucky to help integrate and migrate real-time streaming systems and data warehouses, and improve products like BigQuery, Dataflow / Beam and Kubernetes / Cloud Run. The only thing I couldn’t avoid was becoming a tech lead manager again - but I love building up teams and so I focused a lot on creating coaching, scaling (security and scoping), hiring, onboarding and culture programs, with a special focus on inclusion of diverse backgrounds and community and student outreach to make tech legible.

Monday, 27 December 2021

My Tech Interview style (and the Integration Engineer role) [backdated draft]

Note: This post is backdated to the date of the last draft (27 Dec 2021) as I changed my job and role and didn't want to bias / inform myself by that. It's an unfinished fragment of my thinking at that point in time that I just cleaned up a little and added references where necessary, but it's still rough and incomplete.

I've never been happy with the Tech interview process and burned by it many times - being under-levelled, in role I barely understood (a reason I launched the Tech Job Titles list), rejected for algorithm questions ("write a solver for Tetris but in n dimensions"), or simply not even screened for "no product experience". This form of gatekeeping in the tech industry is one of my pet peeves, but it's also simply unproductive and inefficient. It only works because of survivorship bias for people from top universities who are being prepped with special courses, books, test interviews and special coaching by tech firms - as such it functions more as a ritual than actual role fit and/or culture add. It is basically a code (e.g. speaking out loud during programming), and by knowing that code the interviewee signals the interviewer to be part of the same group ("likeability").

My interview style

I've done about ~250 tech interviews at Google and ~250-500 at Accenture, plus quite few in non-for-profit volunteering and my own startups - regardless whether the role was called programmer, engineer, consultant or architect. Instead of going into depth on what the current interview process is or what's broken with it (the list has a few pointers and there is great research by others), let me highlight what is important for me in tech interviews (leaving behavioural and hypothetical aside):


Friday, 12 November 2021

Tech Job Titles

One of the most common questions I get on career panels, mentoring or coaching sessions and after talks is to explain what my job, my role actually is. There is no easy answer, because it requires an understanding of the complex dependencies of roles in "Tech" (for lack of a better word, information technology product) firms.

Information Systems, Computer Science or Design Thinking courses or books for career starters typically focus on explaining the Software Engineer (SWE) job, sometimes the Product Manager (PM) and partially process-specific rituals and roles (e.g. in Scrum the Product Owner). But rarely do they mention the difference between performing the SWE role in non-tech industry (for lack of a better word - firms or public entities that primarily exist due to non-tech “hardware” products even though they might claim to "digitalize" afraid of disruption), in consulting (firms that provide services, usually to the former, to "digitalize") and tech (firms that sell “software” products and services to gain an advantage with speeding up "digitalization"), and within tech between startups and established firms. I've never seen any mention tech-adjacent roles that might have "engineer' in their title but are not SWEs.

With recent hypergrowth, a lot has been published on "upwards"* career management and manager roles in Tech. But I haven’t seen a good resource on the continued blending of these archetypes and roles and responsibilities - with a list of observations and this article as background reading I'm trying to do so. Maybe later I’ll do a variation for non-tech industry companies and consulting firms.

tl;dr I've created a GitHub repo "awesome-tech-roles" modeled after the "Awesome Lists" with the goal of showing typical clusters of tech-adjacent roles and references to good articles that illustrate the variety within the roles - for career starters in the tech industry. The links are examples, observations, not endorsements of my personal view. Given the bias towards SWE and PM roles I've tried to keep roughly the same number of references per role cluster and focus on established tech firms.

Saturday, 31 July 2021

A view into state [backdated draft]

Note: This post is backdated to the date of the last draft (31 Jul 2021) as I changed my job and role and didn't want to bias / inform myself by that. It's an unfinished fragment of my thinking at that point in time that I just cleaned up a little and added references where necessary, but it's still rough and incomplete.

In principle, any stream processor could be used for materialized views
Kleppmann, 2017, p. 467

Martin Kleppmann recently gave a great keynote in which he summarized his ideas under a new framework of unordered vs. ordered events and mutable vs immutable state. In the accompanying paper he also gave an outlook on a new wave of tools that "abstract away" these consistency decisions in event-driven systems, in particular "Materialized Views" e.g. Materialize - a great overview on the different patterns is Jamie's article.

I've been a fan of this idea not only since the famous "database turned inside out" (1) quote but actually when I first worked with Spanner and saw firsthand how it turned into an SQL system which required a surprising amount of abstraction of internal (consistency) concepts. Most surprising was that fundamentally Spanner is a messaging system (in other words it is truly distributed and not built on replication paradigms), and could even be used as a queue by observing changes "inside out". In most databases those changes are row-based and often used (with CDC) as basis for event sourcing architectures, sadly mixing physical considerations with domain events. But I am interested in one level lower, of the changes within a domain event entity, and lineage, the reason why. This interest comes from Dataflow / Beam and its consistent view of temporal locality, something I've been keen on since agent-based simulation using Erlang's actor inbox (2). Beam doesn't use "wall clock" time but time in the sense of event-timeflow or an ordered sequence of events or the spacetime / promise-theory goal "to explain a process ... we need to be able to ... tell a story about its behaviours". I'm interested in exposing this state and making it legible and explainable.


Wouldn't it be great to have a database supporting per row state (consistency) metadata instead of state hidden in a stream processing system?


Sunday, 31 May 2020

Observability, Debt or the Bret-Victor-Ization of distributed systems

I've been thinking how the different way of conceptualizing cost (in the broader sense of investment) in Cloud changes the tech debt metaphor. It never was a good metaphor to start with and allowed too many excuses, but I like the idea of expressing a suboptimal, incomplete or leaky level of abstraction somehow, as a dialectical, critical tool. I like declarative systems because they allow comparison of state over time, but they do limit expressiveness of our mental models, and omissions, when writing down code. Debt, with its pseudo-quantifiable touch is such a mental model limit. No one wants to keep ADR's for each of these*. How to solve this?

Product-as-code

It's exciting to see how the next step in polyglot programming is taking stacks apart and designating a layer to developer experience for humans based on “progressive disclosure of complexity”, and how we argument for this is feedback time or, in other words, Software Delivery Performance. What a16z recently called The Decade of Design (but combined with craft and lean), the best example probably being Stripe which shows that beautiful API's and documentation and a beautiful website (and beautiful books) might after all correlate, and maybe because they take empathy to their heart (no surprises here for anyone who has seen or used PayPal). 

When I first saw this at Google working with Dremel / F1 and all the Data Mesh tools around it, an ontological, rhizomatic approach to data - without oversight, yet with structure, as side effect of, essentially DDD (or set / category theory, referring to ontology below). And the same when seeing Borg and the Service Mesh around it. Both were built as products with a builder focus, with "a builder" meaning universally anyone who wants to build something, meaning to contribute to a shared idea. When we say everything-as-code we need to go beyond engineering components, we, and that means everyone and the maximum of diverse perspectives, need to look at the product and all of its users. Similar to medical doctors who moved away from seeing "man as machine", or architects seeing the city or the house as a machine, we are slowly moving away from seeing a software system as a machine, perfectly controllable. Technology is not neutral, and a constant process and struggle that goes far beyond engineering.