What happens if you want to the advantages of a pair or ensemble, but you don’t have much time together with the person you’re working with?

There’s more than one way to write code within a team, whether that’s as an ensemble (mob), in pairs or working solo with code reviews. But, what happens if you have different, conflicting meetings during the day or you’re working slightly different hours? Working in distributed or hybrid teams means that the working day can be much more flexible. However, this can create conflict when so much good work, and high quality communication, needs to be done synchronously.

An alternative solution I’ve observed, and used myself in several teams, is something I’m calling async pairing.

There’s more than one way to write code within a team, whether that’s as an ensemble (mob), in pairs or working solo with code reviews. Teams and individuals often have preferences over which they prefer, but (at least in my experience) don’t always talk about the implications of that choice.

“Mob programming is a software development approach where the whole team works on the same thing, at the same time, in the same space, and at the same computer.” – Woody Zuill

The team I’m in had been using mob programming as a technique for a while before COVID-19 caused us all to work remotely. We’d gather around a large TV screen, set up someone’s laptop, find a few keyboards, share some cookies and start a timer. It was a highly collaborative and enjoyable way of working. Occasionally, someone would work from home and we’d set them up on a screen in the corner, and to be honest that didn’t work so well. Then suddenly, we all had to work remote and things changed.

Last weekend I returned to Cardiff for PyConUK 2019. This is the national Python conference and it’s pretty big. It takes over the city hall for five days, with 2-3 speaking tracks, plus workshops and other events (like the children’s day and the Django Girls workshop).

There is a common misconception that imposter syndrome is simply a lack of confidence. It’s not. It’s a continued lack of confidence, in the face of alternative evidence, and usually sustained by external forces.