DotNetos – podsumowanie

12.03.2018 – 16.03.2018 to czas, który zapisze się złotymi byte’ami na dysku historii. Razem z Konradem Kokosą i Łukaszem Pyrzykiem w ciągu 5 dni odwiedziliśmy 5 miast w Polsce, prezentując kontent związany z performance’em w świecie .NET. Czas na krótkie podsumowanie.


Wstępne spojrzenie na ankiety oraz na feedbacku który otrzymujemy, nie tylko za ich pośrednictwem, pokazuje, że było to wydarzenie, które:

  1. przyniosło wartość – wynieśliście z tego wiedzę
  2. podobało się – pod względem motywu przewodniego, akcji promocyjnej
  3. wyróżniało się na tle innych

Niezwykle cieszy mnie ten pozytywny odbiór naszego przedsięwzięcia. Wsadziliśmy w nie niemały kawałek pracy, ale to właśnie Wasz feedback, to owoce, które pokazują czy się udało czy nie. Patrząc po tych owocach: udało się bardzo.

Tydzień z DotNetosami

To był niezwykle intensywny tydzień. Codziennie pobudka, śniadanie, trasa+praca, prezentacje. Niezwykle interesujący i zupełnie niepikantny szczegół to to, że ani razu nie mieliśmy sytuacji konfliktowej. Alignment na pokładzie DotNetos wynosił 300% normy i było to prawdziwie unikatowe przeżycie. Konrad, Łukasz, dzięki! Z takimi amigos nawet Carolina Reaper jest niestraszna!


Gigantyczne kudosy należą się naszemu sponsorowi, firmie 7N. Zdjęła z nas caaaałą masę pracy związanej z logistyką, szukaniem sal, kontaktami z hotelami. Mogę wyobrazić sobie jaki to był wysiłek. Dzięki wielkie!!!

Co dalej? A moje miasto? Jak nie alokować, no jak?

Zarówno podczas samego tournee jak i po nim, otrzymaliśmy pytania dotyczące tego, czy wystąpimy w jakimś mieście, co dalej z DotNetos. Obecnie regenerujemy się, aby w kolejnym tygodniu zrobić retrospekcję naszego wyjazdu. Zapału i pomysłów mamy masę, teraz czas na plany, a potem wykonanie, które będzie na poziomie poprzeczki, którą sami postawiliśmy. DotNetos nie powiedzieli jeszcze ostatniego słowa!


  1. Meetup
  2. Tweeter
  3. Facebook
  4. Strona

Meritocracy: all-in or all-out

There are books that are powerful. One of them is for sure Principles of Ray Dalio.

One of the most interesting ideas presented in this book was the meritocratic approach to decision making. Using a weighted voting and gather these data over and over again to improve the whole system. Noticing and measuring. Doing it over and over again. The interesting thing was an ability to veto any decision made by this system. Even more interesting thing was, the fact that this ability (as author claims) was not used any single time. I think it’s so true to the core of meritocracy. Imagine vetoing or changing one decision and then another one and then another one. How would it support the proposed approached? Once you play this veto card, it’s all out. It’s either all-in or all-out. There’s no middle ground.

On playing (long) game

So you heard that this company used this awesome tool and was able to ship their product in 3 months? So you heard that this book helped somebody to optimize their time spent on X in some way? So you heard that he/she dropped 10kg in one month?

With every success story comes a peril. It’s easy to celebrate a success. It’s even easier to celebrate it if you don’t mention some of the dimensions you were optimizing for.

A fast shipping company could be a software house not caring about the maintainability of their product. Ship fast, ship cheap, earn fast. That’s the background of the story.

The time optimization could be measured for 1 month. What about the following 5? Could this be maintained? Maybe the book was about drinking more coffee and doing more?

Dropping 10kg in a month is not a problem. You can just starve yourself. What about following months? Are they ok? Can you maintain it?

Every single time you hear these awesome news, this miraculous solution to the problem, ask yourself what kind of game is it. A long game or a short one? With this, act accordingly.

On saying “Yes, and…”

“Yes, and…” is one of the rule of improvisational theater. It’s so simple and powerful. You acknowledge what have already been said, adding more, and building up the narrative. It’s not for theaters only though.


Supporting and adding new things to the idea you’ve just heard. A positive snow ball? Why not?


So you’re presenting something or doing a workshop with a colleague? There’s nothing more supporting and encouraging than saying “Yes, and”. You can use different phrases like “as X mentioned before” or even “as X awesomely presented”. Sometimes, I call it “high fives”. It works for presenters, it works for the group.


Having a serious conversation? How about saying “Yes, and” instead of “No, but” and stating the same but slightly rephrased? You make a positive move, the other side makes as well. It’s a win-win.

Yes, and…

it’s your turn to acknowledge and pass it forward. The positiveness of the affirmation of yes, and…

On structures that last

Last year I read over 20 books. One of them was Antifragile, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. One of the ideas that I found intriguing, was the following statement (I’m quoting from memory): things, that have been here for some time, are much more likely to stay, than all the new and shiny.

Herds & ownership

This is my herd. You and me, we’re in the same herd. This person is from another herd. In herd we trust. We, the herd, share secrets, stories and fun. The herd lasts, building its strength over time. Support, knowing each other, help – you get it for free. No matter how you call this herd, a team, a group, people did not change that much. We need herds.

This is mine, that is yours. We own things. Collectively (we, the herd) or individually (“don’t you dare to touch MY phone”). We care about things we own. We care less about things we don’t. We need ownership.

Say Conway’s law, one more time

If you haven’t heard about this law, here it is:

organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations

This one sentence was a reason for never-ending debates, tooooo many presentations and many people nodding and murmuring “Yeah, this is because of the Conway’s law”.

Now, think again about structures, the Conway’s law and things that last. Is it a valid approach to organize things in different way? If it is, what things are included in the new order and what are excluded? Is there any chance that by designing a new approach, the proven approaches are being thrown away? Whatever you do, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

On sharing your opinion

Two short stories, one topic.


Imagine the following scenario. An interesting discussion that gets people excited. There’s this one new person that doesn’t get involved too much. Actually, if you were counting all the words they said, the number would be 0. Nothing, none, null. The reason for this is simple. They did not go through the same as the rest. The experience in this topic, if any, is none. Their reasoning as simple as that: no exp, no talk. Is it a valid approach?


Imagine the following scenario. An interesting discussion that gets people excited. There’s this one person that gets involved. They share all the experiences they had with the topic. The reasoning they share, the experience, is so big, that all the rest just follows their words. The speaker’s reasoning as simple as that: big exp, big talk. Is it a valid approach?

What to do?

Recently, I came to a conclusion that there’s no simple answer to these questions. Being an expert, sometimes requires you to be quiet for a little. To listen to others’ experiences and to not flood them with your opinions. They may just follow you.
Being a novice, sometimes requires you to share, what you don’t know. Just to show a new point of view.
Next time, when debating, think about your opinions again. Maybe, it’s time to make it the other way around.

On reading whitepapers

There is an ancient technique that can help you in achieving mastery in computer science. No, I don’t mean a “from zero to hero in 2 hours” kind of online course. Nope, I don’t mean a free ebook that you can get after registering to a mailing list. Oh, some kind of a certification? I don’t mean it either. What I’m thinking about, is some real mental heavy lifting. I’m thinking about reading whitepapers.

It’s funny that wisdom can hit you after some time. I still remember words of one of my lecturers, who said, that it would be more beneficial for us to go home and study on our own, rather than listening to him. The very same can be applied to complex and/or innovative algorithms, processes, approaches described in whitepapers. Consider the new and shiny CosmosDB from Microsoft Azure. It promises indexing data in any schema (using JSON as a payload format). How can you achieve it, considering a multi-tenant environment (no, you’re not alone in the cloud) and all the funky objects stored in the database? Here’s the whitepaper describing it. Is it dense? Yes. Is it not-so-easy-to-read? Yes. Is it worth it? In my opinion, yes.

We live in times, when you can often face an assumption, that we need to ship things ASAP and understand them in a fast and easy way. Whitepapers are probably the exact opposite. It takes time to learn how to read them. It takes time to read every of them. It takes time to verify and apply findings in them.

I wish you more time, more focus, more presence and strength for spending it properly.