There is a quote made famous by Ruth Malan from Grady Booch: "Architecture represents the significant design decisions that shape a system." And shaping a system takes time, and seeing the impact of these significant design decisions can take years after the changes have been done. And most of us are usually not there to reak the benefit, or worse, feel its pain. So in collaboration with D-EDGE we will have a panel of people that did experience and will discuss how architecture decisions shaped the system years after the change.

Our models should be driven by the domain, but not constrained by what domain experts tell us. After all, the domain language is messy, organic, ambiguous, social, incomplete, and if it has any intentional design to it at all, it's not designed to be turned into software. Modelling is more than capturing requirements, it's the opportunity to create novel concepts. This talk will use real-world stories to invite you to discuss.

Miro https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVOY0dIIk=/

The term “sociotechnical” seems to have gotten a bit or renaissance lately, which is a great thing given all the positive impact it has had on many organisations and their workers around the world over the years. It also seems to have gotten some traction outside the academic circles this time after being developed and pushed from there mostly using action research since its humble beginning in the post-war British coal mines. It is an entry into systems thinking for many, with its idea about joint optimisation of both the technical and social aspects of an organisation. A common example is setting up the team topology to match the service architecture in an attempt to cater for negative effects of Conway’s law. This is all well and good, but if we think about it, viewing the modern organisation as a sociotechnical system is a bit of a tautology; all organisations have social and technical elements that people deal with on a daily basis. As with systems thinking, the value of sociotechnical system design is more about perspective and understanding rather than any specific outcome. There is so much more to sociotechnical design than DevOps and team setup that we need in order to cope in our increasingly complex and hazardous “digital coal mines.”

Do Software architects have a bad name? Why? What are your expectations, what anti-patterns you experience? What are you thankful for from your architects? Should you have a software architect in the team, or between the teams?

Changing the world starts with thinking and sharing the reasons. This podcast is the recording of our open discussion with the community.

Cat Swetel gave a brilliant Technologist's Introduction to Epistemic Injustice explaining "epistemic injustice"—what we know, how we know, and who gets to decide and influence our reality. There are two kinds of epistemic injustice:

Testimonial injustice; When someone is ignored, or not believed, because of their sex, sexuality, gender presentation, race, or, broadly, because of their identity. Hermeneutical injustice; injustice related to how people interpret their lives.

Join us in this session where Cat will do a short introduction on the topic, and after, we will talk about how this impact domain crunching. For instance, if we don't include software developers in requirements engineering, what is the impact? What if the software teams only allowed to build user stories and aren't part of the narrative for their building? And what about the exchange of narratives across the ecosystem, i.e. across domains. Do we have the hermeneutic resources to describe emergent behaviour across the system?

Join us in this special fireside chat with Udi Dahan answering all your questions spanning from Domain-Driven Design, Software Architecture from SOA, event-driven, CQRS, Large-scale distributed systems, Saga Patterns, Event sourcing, microservices and anything in between. Ask your questions upfront or during the session! You can also already engage and see the questions that are already asked at this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/UdiDahan/status/1349302917648568321

Domain-Driven Design is a lot about collaborative modelling, understanding the user's needs collaboratively to design and implement the best fitting model. We want the teams to do this as autonomous as possible, getting fast feedback and new insights into improving that model. At the same time, they need to stay aligned with the company goals and strategy and other teams. To ensure this alignment, companies hire managers and architects for that task. But what decisions should be made centralized, and what decentralized? What part of managing should be autocratic, and what should be participatory?

Join us in a dialogue with Ellis de Haan, Marc Burgauer, Andrew Harmel-Law and Trond Hjorteland. We will discuss everything concerning the culture around autonomous teams. Patterns of anarchy, command and control decision making, architects as a job, the long going discussion of 'do we really need a manager' and can leaders be managers? And dive into the stratified systems theory or "levels of work" by Elliot Jaques.

People wonder how distilling the Core with the Core, supportive and generic subdomains fit and what space. What concepts are in the problem space, and what is the solution? And what is a precise definition of problem and solution space?

Join us in this session are a diverse group of people spanning multiple disciplines to look at how they see the relationship(s) between problem and solution space in IT. And hopefully, in the end, we can have a useful, consistent model of those relationships between problem and solution space, core, supportive, generics (sub)domains for the #DDDesign community.