DNA Meeting

The DNA Meeting (Design and Architecture) is Lopp’s framework for a formal technical decision-making forum that deliberately separates architectural authority from management authority. Introduced in Chapter 15 “A Different Kind of DNA” of Managing Humans, it solves a structural failure: in most organisations, major technical decisions are made by whoever is highest in the management hierarchy rather than whoever has the deepest technical knowledge.

Why the DNA Meeting Exists

Without a deliberate forum for technical governance, decision-making defaults to hierarchy. Managers make architectural calls because they hold authority, not because they hold the most relevant knowledge. Senior engineers — the actual Players — are reduced to implementing decisions they had no voice in shaping. The DNA Meeting reclaims technical authority for the engineers closest to the work.

Five Characteristics

A DNA Meeting must satisfy all five criteria to function correctly:

1. Shines a light on big decisions: Participation is mandatory for designated senior engineers. Important technical decisions cannot happen in back-channels or informal conversations. Visibility is enforced by structure.
2. Brings technical firepower: Membership is senior engineers, not managers. The people in the room are the organisation’s deepest technical expertise.
3. Has teeth: Decisions made in DNA Meetings stick. Management cannot casually override them. Without this, the forum is theatre.
4. Is inclusive: Any engineer may observe or attend. Membership in the decision-making circle is earned by seniority; presence in the room is open to all.
5. Is drama-free: The forum is professional, focused on technical merit, and not a venue for political manoeuvring. Conflict is expected and surfaced constructively.

Who Participates

Membership is selected by track record: the engineers who have demonstrated sustained technical leadership across significant systems. This is deliberately distinct from managers, architects-in-title, or whoever attended last week’s exec meeting.

The “Teeth” Requirement

The single most important characteristic is that decisions bind. An advisory body that management routinely overrides teaches engineers that their expertise is decorative. Teeth require organisational commitment at the VP or CTO level that DNA Meeting decisions will be respected.

Comparison to Related Structures

• Architecture Review Boards (ARBs): Often management-heavy governance bodies that become bureaucratic rubber stamps. The DNA Meeting is engineer-led and decision-making rather than advisory (per TOGAF and AWS modern ARB guidance recommending distributed, engineer-empowered governance).
• RFC processes: Open-source equivalent — Rust’s RFC system and Python’s PEP process route major technical decisions through public, distributed review before team-level approval. The DNA Meeting is the internal, synchronous analogue.
• Architecture Decision Records: ADRs document the decisions the DNA Meeting reaches, ensuring they are not lost to Malcolm-Events.
• Meeting type: DNA Meetings are alignment meetings. Their purpose is surfacing disagreement and reaching a binding decision, not distributing information.

Related Concepts

• Players-vs-Pawns
• Alignment-vs-Informational-Meetings
• Architecture-Decision-Records
• Managing Humans - Lopp - 2019
• Malcolm-Events

Sources

• Lopp, Michael (2019). Managing Humans: Biting and Humorous Tales of a Software Engineering Manager, 3rd ed. Apress. ISBN: 978-1-484-23712-4.

  • Chapter 15: “A Different Kind of DNA” — primary source for the DNA Meeting framework and five characteristics.

• The Open Group (2009). TOGAF Version 9: Architecture Review Board. Chapter 23. The Open Group.

  • Available: https://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf8-doc/arch/chap23.html
  • Defines the traditional Architecture Review Board as a governance body for evaluating and approving architecture initiatives; contrast to the DNA Meeting’s engineer-led model.

• Amazon Web Services (2022). “Build and Operate an Effective Architecture Review Board.” AWS Architecture Blog.

  • Available: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/build-and-operate-an-effective-architecture-review-board/
  • Modern ARB practice emphasises distributed decision-making and embedding technical governance in teams — converging toward the DNA Meeting model.

• Rust Language Team (2014). “RFC 0002: RFC Process.” The Rust RFC Book.

  • Available: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/0002-rfc-process.html
  • Open-source equivalent: team-based, distributed, public technical decision-making for “substantial” changes — the async/distributed analogue of Lopp’s synchronous DNA Meeting.

• InnerSource Commons (2021). “Transparent Cross-Team Decision Making Using RFCs.” InnerSource Patterns.

  • Available: https://patterns.innersourcecommons.org/p/transparent-cross-team-decision-making-using-rfcs
  • Practitioner pattern for implementing RFC-style distributed technical governance inside organisations, paralleling the DNA Meeting’s goals.

Note

This content was drafted with assistance from AI tools for research, organization, and initial content generation. All final content has been reviewed, fact-checked, and edited by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with the author’s intentions and perspective.