It's also how the competent rise though, in #1 they not only service a need but they identify that need on their own and in #4 they're completing tickets that are chosen partially based on how popular their resolution will be. What's the alternative, choose admins at random and ignore the people who have shown the most promise for understanding and contributing to tasks related to being an admin?
If people are only competent, they would not do #5 and #6.
If people are actually going to make an effort to kick people out to cement their position, then it is better to restrict their access, before they do too much damage. Getting one person who services the need is not worth it if they kick out everyone else.
> If people are actually going to make an effort to kick people out to cement their position
If the only reason is to cement their position then sure, but there are good reasons to limit the number of admins. The more admins, the more attack vectors for serious social engineering, the harder change control is, the longer meetings go for, the harder it is to make necessary change, etc. etc.
I think if somebody cares enough to become an admin and shows they care about the users then I don't mind them getting a power trip out of it. It's the "admins" that got there because they know the boss, or because they convinced somebody they should have access because their job-title entitles them to it that you need to look out for.
It's the opposite of power, it's like being downpromoted to janitor. Now you're the one having to clean jira tickets. Grunt work to add a field or setup a plugin for every manager who feels important and a hard-to-maintain software.
If you want sysadmin power, get DNS access or AWS admin or active directory admin or root on all servers.
Actually, the jira admin probably grants more "power" and visibility onto every manager who's got to come to you for tickets. So it makes sense for politics.
In an Org there are the actual roles and official power structures, and then there are the unofficial or de facto power structures.
The AWS or Network owner may have the keys to the kingdom in terms of provisioning access, turning off routers, running arbitrary code on things, etc. but that also comes with great responsibility. If you fuck around and break something on accident, or shut down a router on purpose, there will be consequences. You may spend 150% of your day putting out fires and getting yelled at by senior leaders for application-killing lag or outages.
Meanwhile JIRA guy gets to shift blame and interface with leadership. He may not have any power, but depending on the org, he could have a bunch.
When I worked for an ISP -- a big one, chances are everyone here has heard of em -- one of the most powerful people in the PMO was essentially a secretary ("project coordinator") who had the ear of the head of the PMO, the VP of Engineering, and the CTO. She smoked a lot of cigs, so if you could make it to that smokers circle you could twist some powerful levers...
For my part, of can’t understand why someone would want to be admin. It seems like a thankless job with a lot of stress and you are often the first in line for blame if something bad happens whether or not it was your fault. But, I am glad that there are people who really like being admin enough to go to a lot of effort to become one.
It causes me way more stress to see bad admins fuck up so badly it causes an impact to other employees yourself included in the department while you sit passively by, than it is to put your hand on the wheel.
The admin panel also has more buttons and buttons are cool.
Its often enough easier to control the system directly, which you care for, then to wait for others doing what you can do by yourself.
I'm waiting again for an issue being fixed by some admin from a jira system. I could just do that myself, i could do that better then the other person, but i don't have the permissions.
Sometimes its like 'do i pay someone else to paint my walls vs. do i do it myself'.
I'm a software engineere, it feels naturally to control my environment.
I think the article makes some good points, but I'm not sure that the gatekeeping step (step 6) is necessary. I think if you look at all the other steps, it fundamentally comes down to one thing:
Care enough about making things better such that others view you as valuable.
It's not that someone necessarily wants to be a Jira admin, but rather, they want to have access to make changes directly related to their job. If they managing a team in some way, either project manager or some other role, they need to change how tickets are managed in Jira at some point. Maybe create new release versions for tagging tickets, or adjusting the lifecycle rules for a ticket. The easiest solution is to be a Jira admin. Otherwise, you need to find some permission for this user and request it. Then the next change needs a new permission.
I would equate this to an outdated model of Developer vs Sysadmin. The sysadmin controls everything about the production system. They don't want to change anything. The developer needs to release a new version, which needs a new library, or needs an update to the OS, etc. Or they don't even know what the production system looks like and the sysadmin won't help. So the dev wants root access to just fix it instead of going through excessive redtape.
Soooo you 'social engineered' yourself into a Jira admin role, but you have to do all the work that a Jira admin has to do anyway now, and responsibly? Not a win in my book.. It actually sounds dreadful.
I absolutely agree with this sentiment. It's why I had difficulty reading "how to win friends and influence people" despite how frequently and casually lauded it is.
It's literally an instruction manual for using indirect methods of communication and influence to get people to do what you want. It's practically adtech for the self.
Ignoring the dangers of having charismatic power over people, I don't know under what circumstances it is ethical to manipulate someone, and I certainly wouldn't brag openly about it.
It seems like the same action can be taken differently depending on intent. For example, one of the things Dale Carnegie emphasized is the importance of remembering people's names.
If you try to remember people's names is that manipulative? If so, why do we apologize for forgetting people's names? If we write down the names of people we meet, is that manipulative or is it just being organized?
Very good points! Intent can be tricky, since good intentions quite often go badly. Defining "badly" even becomes problematic as well (badly for who - me? them? the collective?). I think one of the problems with manipulation, is the intent is inherently selfish (to achieve your own goals/agenda), with the target's well being/free agency being a secondary consideration. However, it is definitely challenging to find the line between persuasion, cultural norms/good manners (e.g., remembering someone's name, making eye contact, etc.), and manipulation.
> Declare that there are too many admins and that there needs to be a stricter policy to define who can be an admin.
> Take it on yourself to define (or redefine) that policy and present it to the system owner in your organization. Make sure you fit the new definition and make sure that staple admins are also included.
> No one remembers why you’re admin, but you’re setting the rules now so no one can dispute it. Victory!
What are we even discussing here? This is such a indicator of bad character.
Although I'm sure the author had no malicious intent, I'm reminded of certain subcultures disguising not-so-great behavior behind comedy so they can claim it isn't serious when criticized.
Edit: and I've just now remembered what a great laugh I had reading some of the language in "The Anarchist Cookbook" even though all those non-traditional fire recipes were certainly meant to be used for some kind of malicious act :)
> he's explaining that acting responsible puts him in positions of responsibility
It could be taken that way, but the problem is that the author deliberately puts it in terms that make that ambiguous.
A much less ambiguous way to put it would have been:
1. Help out an existing admin by fixing something they care about fixing but are too busy to fix themselves.
2. Repeat step 1. enough times that there is general recognition in the organization that you can fix problems and will do so responsibly.
3. Approach the powers that be and point to your track record established in steps 1. and 2. as evidence that (a) another admin is needed to help carry the load, and (b) you are the right person for that job.
4. Get appointed as an admin.
The author's process might be essentially the same as the above, but it might not; there are various signs in his writeup of the latter, that might be valid signs or might just be his whimsical way of speaking. And if his process isn't the same as the above, then he's doing more than just acting responsible and thereby earning positions of responsibility.
Where the real divergence comes is this:
"8. Make sure to keep helping out anyone who wants to fix problems with the system. If you become a roadblocker, you will allow someone else to do step #1 and you might lose your access when that person reaches step #6."
Notice that in my steps 1. through 4. above, no existing admins get punted. So there's no need for someone who reaches my step 4. to take steps to prevent others from starting at my step 1. and working their way through the process. And someone who was genuinely concerned for the well-being of the organization would be open to the possibility that, just as the admins who were there before him weren't able to take care of all the problems, there might come a time when the admins including him might not be able to either.
This is an instructive article for how to get a lot done to improve systems as a "utility knife" developer in a growing startup, but how to do it responsibly.
That doesn't sound white hat at all. It sounds sociopathic. At least he on some level recognizes that it "sounds like an evil plan for world domination".
Hmm yes, that makes more sense! Not far enough from what I've seen written seriously that that was apparent, though I'm no expert in the field.
On the topic of taking jokes seriously :
About 10 years ago I came across Winning with the Bongcloud, a mock 36 page guide to a new killer chess opening (1. e4 e5 2. Ke2 - the worst move possible in that position) which was about the funniest thing I'd ever read, brilliant in every way. It uses the vague terms real opening books do, with every example game leaving you with a "winning" position which is actually lost by mate in 1.
I wrote the author a gushing email, saying it was a brilliant work, thanking him for the valuable addition to opening theory etc – playing along with the joke. The author wrote back a puzzling message explaining that it was actually all a joke, that all the diagrams were losing, etc as if I'd taken it seriously. I can't imagine why he thought I'd thought it had any value, if I'd taken it seriously. (Maybe he was out-trolling me?! That didn't occur to me until just now.)
Anyway, pleasingly, the Bongcloud is nowadays very famous. Almost every online stream where grandmasters say they'll play openings suggested by users, someone suggests the Bongcloud, and without fail they know what it is, and I've seen it played several times. It gives joy like no serious opening could.
Take heed of this post, it's how the incompetent rise.