Paul GrahamVerified account

You’re both correct because you’re both explaining the eustress <-> distress spread. The correct pressure at the correct time via the correct medium = huge benefits. Opposite is low quality work. In short: optimize (for) flowstates.

Parkinson's Law: Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion

Same with me. Have to put artificial deadlines in to get stuff done.

I have to agree, even in complex software projects - the presence of deadlines is a practical tool against Parkinson’s law (everything takes the time it’s given), you just need to be acutely aware of your priorities.

Deadlines become real when committing to a party closer to 1-way door decisions (e.g. key customer promises, public events, complex mkt campaigns, big contracts). But yes, they are less real, when it's 2-way door decisions (internal mtgs, self-contained feature releases, etc.)

Oh the two are very different things. You are in control of the final outcome. Allen’s referring to dev environments where developers have little to no control. They are forced to either ship with technical debt or miss the deadline.

I assume you only accepted this talk commitment because the subject and/or audience motivated you intrinsically. Operating at that challenge-opportunity boundary is much more elusive in Sprint land.

I agree here. I love @jasonfried @basecamp who believes 6 week cycles are best. They give enough time to get significant work done but are short enough to keep the end in mind.