Jita Park Speakers Corner

EVE is a lot of things to many different people - a sandbox, a way to socialize, a storytelling engine. But fundamentally, it's a long running software project. It's important that the CSM understand that when they deal with CCP.

Where I work, we've been adopting scrum recently as a way to manage our projects (you can read about it here). I don't believe in blindly following scrum, but I do think it's important to understand the roles it recommends and why. There are two vital roles in scrum: the product owner and the technical lead.

The product owner understands the business needs of the project. In effect, they determine the "what and why" - what needs to be delivered and why is it important. The important part is that product owners don't determine the implementation and they don't set the schedule - they simply communicate what is necessary for the project to succeed, and prioritize the work to be done. The technical lead is responsible for the "how and when" of the project. They determine how to achieve the product owner's goals and when it can be done.

The important part here is that the product owner only expresses priorities - they simply set the agenda, while the technical lead determines the implementation and when things can be done. When these two roles compete, a workable plan emerges in compromise - one that maximizes the business value delivered while remaining realistic in estimating what the team can accomplish.

While listening to the debate, it struck me that The Mittani understands the role of the product owner very well. In fact, much better than many of the professionals I've worked with over the years. So many CSM candidates think their job is to pontificate on features they'd like to see in the game - to act as a kind of firehose of bad ideas. However, the reason CSM 6 was so successful is that The Mittani instead realized his job was to set the priorities, and let CCP determine what it can deliver and when. When you simply present features, you get bogged down into discussions of technical complexity and implementation details and lose sight of the important thing - the goal you wanted the feature to accomplish. Instead you can achieve more by only setting the priorities, by communicating the results you'd like to achieve, and letting those with technical know-how determine how to achieve those ends.

It's weird to me that he would have this clear, intuitive grasp of these concepts when it's so hard to find well-paid professional software project managers that understand this stuff. But there you have it. Whatever you may think of The Mittani, how he plays the game, or if he sounds a little arrogant, the truth is he's essentially volunteering to work as a product manager for CCP and seems immensely qualified for the task.

Really, the CSM chair isn't just a political position, or a popularity contest. It's an unpaid product manager role on a long running software project. And if you think about it that way, Mittani isn't just the best candidate - he's the only qualified one.

That is an interesting point - about being an unpaid product manager, or at least an unpaid product development/marketing/etc advisor. I would vote for a candidate whose interests, like a product manager, gravitate towards the long-term growth and survival of the game.

So my question to The Mittani would be: What do you see as your priorities, should you be reelected, to help ensure the before mentioned growth and survival of the game - what would you get behind to achieve this?

This isn't even about software, that's just general management principles. A good carpenter's master doesn't concern himself with the color of the cupboard's hinges either.

And I don't believe being a CSM chairman is that much about management given that you have no formal and only limited informal authority. It's more of a public relations job, or a little bit like auditing and advice, where you have to push the right people in the correct way to show them areas to improve their work in.

I'm liking this thread, it seems to be a continual list of skills not seen as desirable or of added value to a role. Especially when its likley excusing the Mittani from all responsibilities in these areas at the same time.

Please, who's next, what else is the Mittani bad at? What else should a CSM chairman not be bothered about.

You can attempt to label, pidgeon hole or make the role as Mittani compatible as you like. You aren't fooling anyone that your grasping at straws to find some perspective of capability to cling to. It is really funny to watch however.

Still havent convinced me that any of the square pegs your trying to put through a round hole suggest skills that the other candidates don't also have.

I know maybe make EvE about judicial law or whatever the Mittani's area was. Then maybe it might be relevant to argue about the "superior" qualities of the Mittani in tha role. Though funnily all I've seen is a complete disregard from any form of official guidance from CCP concerning the CSM.

The Mittani "gets" politics which is an aspect of leadership many forget to employ.
After all, it is easy to lead - just not so easy to get others to follow.
My problem is that I'm keen for CCP to work on the aspects I'm interested in. I'm in a minority, I know it and I know my vote counts for little against the Goon block. So while I have huge respect of Mittens and the Goons as a whole I'd still like to see them burn.
It's frustrating to feel this powerless. I never was good at patience.

CCP should just hire him then, if he is so good.

NEWS AT ELEVEN, GOONS POST ABOUT HOW GREAT THEIR CEO IS.

If you want someone who actually understands and can work with CCP*, vote Seleene.
If you merely want someone who isn't a self-serving egomaniac, vote Hans.
If you're a Goon, vote Mittens.

/story

*Because apparently, the CSM is some super-force of citizen soldiers that have final say over CCP's development schedule. They're not, you know, player representatives. That is silly!

Well, yeah, but doesn't everyone want that? I would presume that everyone running for CSM wants the game to grow, and to have more people playing in a larger, richer universe. Given how many people unsubbed for Incarna and came back for Crucible, I think it's pretty clear The Mittani's focus on fixing existing features and improving space-based gameplay is the right direction.

I'm just really fired up about this because I just finished off a two year stint at a startup that, while we did get bought and have a good exit, never really seemed to produce anything worthwhile. We didn't have a product owner - management wanted the entire team to be invested in the vision of the project and decide what to work on. It was horrible because we didn't have a clear direction for the project. Everyone would suggest "features" - technical people would suggest features that they knew how to implement in their area of the project, but which didn't add any clear business value. Management would suggest features that would range from simple to impossible to implement, but which fitted with what they wanted out of the project.

if instead of suggesting features, management had told us "this is what I want to accomplish, and why", we could have used our creativity and technical knowledge to achieve those goals. Looking back, that was something we would ask them for, without being able to really articulate it well. So instead, we ended up with a mishmash of half-finished features and a product that didn't have a clear value proposition.

This is why I like people in IT. It make it so much easier to torpedo any attempts on their part to organize or collectivize. Salary negotiations are always amusing.

Part of the job of a Chair is to direct and allow individuals voice time. If the Chair takes a stance against an individual their life gets a whole lot harder, and it does not have to appear overt. It is next to impossible even for the most reasonable chair-person to keep their personal opinions out of the equation.

So even if a minority did get a rep in the CSM, how much credence they are given is is largely due to how charitable the Chair feels towards them.

Now from what I've read, no one is suggesting Mittens abused his position as Chair. But, don't for a minute believe it is not a position of power.