Ask HN: Would it help to have an extra senior developer for just an hour a day?
14 comments
I can't imagine this could work. Anything remotely serious will have some context switching cost associated with it, and the more random 1-hour commitments you have, the more time you'll spend switching between each. And on top of that you're leaving no time to get into the productive flow state. I also have serious doubts about developing any kind of competency in the codebase or the business on one hour a day. Twenty+ yoe here.
Here are a few problems you would have to solve:
1. Domain experience - every business is unique and you need to put a given problem into context to see how a given solution fits the business.
2. Project requirements - most projects have barely intelligible requirements that change regularly - sometimes daily. The person would need to get up-to-speed on what that is.
3. One hour is a short amount of time to understand the task and complete it. The best you could do is try to understand and point someone in the right direction. People aren't machines and the need for flow is real.
4. AI code assistance requires oversight and understanding. You never want to generate code and check in unless you fully understand it. Code hallucination is and will continue to be a problem for the foreseeable future.
1. Domain experience - every business is unique and you need to put a given problem into context to see how a given solution fits the business.
2. Project requirements - most projects have barely intelligible requirements that change regularly - sometimes daily. The person would need to get up-to-speed on what that is.
3. One hour is a short amount of time to understand the task and complete it. The best you could do is try to understand and point someone in the right direction. People aren't machines and the need for flow is real.
4. AI code assistance requires oversight and understanding. You never want to generate code and check in unless you fully understand it. Code hallucination is and will continue to be a problem for the foreseeable future.
Yes. role 1 can work. I am an "advisor" at a seed level startup. I like to believe that I am useful there. Engineering Team is in India, mostly young folks. They use my expertise for precisely the things you mentioned. code reviews, CI/CD suggestions, system design etc. I spent 3-4 hours on their system. The CEO is my close friend. so it works well so far. I have worked in Walmart, Yahoo etc. The juniors gain my experience of "working at scale"
Email in profile. Contact if interested.
Email in profile. Contact if interested.
I spend 3-4 hours on their system PER WEEK
Ehhh maybe. I’m very much in favor of a 30-hour workweek situation, but hesitant about the 1-hour-per-day idea.
I sometimes provide feedback as a senior engineer that gets corrected because there was context that I wasn’t given. It’s nobody’s fault but it’s a recognition that we all have a responsibility to understand our systems deeply in order to solve hard problems and I’m not sure that 1 hour per day gets you there.
I sometimes provide feedback as a senior engineer that gets corrected because there was context that I wasn’t given. It’s nobody’s fault but it’s a recognition that we all have a responsibility to understand our systems deeply in order to solve hard problems and I’m not sure that 1 hour per day gets you there.
Three hours maybe, one hour is too few.
If I wanted a senior devs opinions, leaving them days to ponder and consider their responses is also valuable, so three hours every few days is much more valuable than one hour a day.
The problem with one hour a day is like having a washing machine once a month: It's useful, but you still need to rely on the workhouse alternative for 3/4 weeks, and it saves you time, but might add more mental burden or risk, making it risky to do.
If I wanted a senior devs opinions, leaving them days to ponder and consider their responses is also valuable, so three hours every few days is much more valuable than one hour a day.
The problem with one hour a day is like having a washing machine once a month: It's useful, but you still need to rely on the workhouse alternative for 3/4 weeks, and it saves you time, but might add more mental burden or risk, making it risky to do.
This would work brilliantly, but it would depend on the person. You would want somebody hyper critical and original to really question your teams bad decisions in order realign your trajectory and simultaneously provide mentorship. This means somebody with average agreeability or less, extremely high openness, and relatively high consciousness. This person needs to have the ability to really question your basic assumptions about software, experience as a solution provider, and excellent organizational skills like an architect, and superior communication skills the demonstrate both criticality and empathy (but absolutely not sympathy).
In the world of corporate software this person is a purple unicorn. You will likely want to bring in somebody from a different walk of life (yet still have a software background) where this personality set is more common yet has an aptitude for software and organization, which can include places like community organizer, military, project manager, logistics engineering, and so forth.
Also keep in mind that many developers are both entitled and have a super narrow perspective on how to proceed. Bringing in a part timer to shake things may result in emotional distress and immediate rejection from many developers, so this person needs a superior title. In the end it’s about saving the employer money and simultaneously increasing product quality first, and secondly increasing developer confidence and satisfaction. I would plan on two to four hours per week diving into the product and sprint planning, about two hours per week with one on ones, and another two hours per week on writing summaries for the team.
In the world of corporate software this person is a purple unicorn. You will likely want to bring in somebody from a different walk of life (yet still have a software background) where this personality set is more common yet has an aptitude for software and organization, which can include places like community organizer, military, project manager, logistics engineering, and so forth.
Also keep in mind that many developers are both entitled and have a super narrow perspective on how to proceed. Bringing in a part timer to shake things may result in emotional distress and immediate rejection from many developers, so this person needs a superior title. In the end it’s about saving the employer money and simultaneously increasing product quality first, and secondly increasing developer confidence and satisfaction. I would plan on two to four hours per week diving into the product and sprint planning, about two hours per week with one on ones, and another two hours per week on writing summaries for the team.
From my consulting experience, I can say that there is certainly a custom type of relationship you can build with certain companies where the CEO/management are willing to think outside the box on hiring. I'd say those opportunities are relatively rare compared to the majority that are trying to hire within the typical 9-5 framework.
I have a hard time believing so... in general. In specific circumstances, maybe?
My team and I toss out more than five hours a week in meetings, together. Claw that back and benefit from context this pluggable advisor won't have.
My team and I toss out more than five hours a week in meetings, together. Claw that back and benefit from context this pluggable advisor won't have.
What are you solving for? Easy No. waste of everyone’s resource, time.
Absolutely, I could hold eight positions as "Ultra-low hours mambojambo developer". /s
Can you imagine the context-switching?
Folks that bill by the hour are stuck in the 90s
Can you imagine the context-switching?
Folks that bill by the hour are stuck in the 90s
>Leverage experience and expertise where it matters most without paying a full salary with benefits.
Someone that useful would be worth bringing on full time.
Someone that useful would be worth bringing on full time.
No. One day a week would be useful though.
1 hour is not even enough to give meaningful advice, let alone fix or deliver anything.
1. "Ultra-low hours part-time senior developer" - This role is pretty straightforward. The idea is you have a talented, motivated, and flexible senior dev that you can plug in anywhere. I would assume that anyone who has been in management long enough knows of an employee who they would still want to keep on the team even if you only had them for one hour a day.
2. "Ultra-low hours part-time technical assistant" - This is a hybrid position that is a bit more difficult to define. This role could fill all the same responsibilities as the one listed above. It could also be part personal assistant and part subject matter expert. Think of it like Chat-GPT5 with no token limit. (I know GPT5 does not exist yet, but a senior dev with GPT4 should be just as good if not better than GPT5 whenever it is released)
"But wait! The second role sounds just like a personal assistant." - A personal assistant/executive assistant is often a very important and vital member of the team. They are usually generalists and in the case of an executive assistant, they are usually full-time. The idea for the positions listed above is to pair the boss/executive with someone who aligns on a technical level.
Things to consider,