Notes for December 22nd 2023

Song of the week:

• We're just about wrapping up the year. But this year just has no interest in actually ending. So this week has been unusually busy given that next week is out of office for most of my colleagues.
  • I sent a wrap-up email to the Dublin office, where I have the fortune of being the Site Lead. And while the email was good, outlining what happened in 2023, some things to be excited for in the new year and a bunch of photos of craic, the replies are amazing. I've had such warmth from folks while being the custodian of that role.
• I've been thinking a lot about meetings. I know, I'm that exciting. But the context is in our annual planning process. I've been through over a decade of go-to-market-adjacent planning cycles, and they're never perfect. They always try to mix the partiality of quotas, territories and numbers with the impartiality of human behaviour. That's why it's exciting. But I've seen so many iterations of "how we plan" that it can crush your soul. This year I think I saw every iteration across different teams simultaneously. Which is probably why I'm working today (the 22nd of feckin' December)!

  - My "ideal" is a short, snappy, bottom-line-up-front one or two pager that outlines what the conversation is about. Kind of a problem statement with proposed solution. Sure, that's tip of the iceberg stuff, but it's an easy way to get everyone on the same page. I'd prefer if this could happen in a presentation format (5 slides max), but people wind up being weirdly verbose or conveying the wrong information in slides. Which maybe is a point of enablement or training rather than the people themselves. Then, let the meeting be scrappy, messy and filled with disagreement. But whoever is 'chair' of the meeting (which should rarely be the key stakeholder or author of any materials) should make sure 5-10mins at the end, even if it's a 30min meeting, are dedicated to some go / no-go or actionable decisions. Not everyone has to agree. It's not a democracy in a company. But you need to, at least, have enacted change.
  

  
• I note in my tabs this week that Substack CEO has come out to reject the notion that they would ever moderate, demonetise or remove nazi or adjacent content. Because they're pursuing openness. Fuck me sideways this is peak tech idiocy. Imagine the NY Times allowing pro-Hitler think pieces in it's paper during the 1920s and 30s. Substack has an onus as a publishing mechanism to uphold some sort of moral standard. It can be low, because the internet is ridiculous. But it can't be under the ground. If I was an investor I would bail out of that shit house as soon as possible.
• Please, enjoy some time off with loved ones and enjoy the break.