Bikeshed honeypots

TL;DR: A bikeshed honeypot is an obvious flaw that you place in a proposal in hopes that others will fixate on the honeypot, diverting their attention from the aspects you feel more strongly about.

3 minute read

If you’ve been around software long enough, there’s a good chance you’ve heard the term “bikeshedding.” Bikeshedding is the idea that, given the opportunity, people will comment on a proposed idea, and they will comment on the parts of the idea that they understand (not necessarily the parts that require the most extraordinary scrutiny).

For example, if you propose building a bike shed, those interested in seeing the bikeshed built will dig their heels in on what color you should paint the shed, not its structure, size, or location. The idea traces back to a post on a Linux mailing list nearly two decades ago:

Just because you can build a bikeshed does not mean you should stop others from building one… because you do not like the color they plan to paint it… you need not argue about every little feature just because you know enough to do so.

Parkinson’s law of triviality

Bikeshedding is an application of the broader Parkinson’s law of triviality, the idea that “members of an organization give disproportionate weight to trivial issues.” For example:

[It’s easy to imagine] a fictional committee whose job was to approve the plans for a nuclear power plant spending the majority of its time on discussions about relatively minor but easy-to-grasp issues, such as what materials to use for the staff bike shed, while neglecting the proposed design of the plant itself, which is far more critical but also a far more complicated and complex task.

You’ve likely seen it before when presenting to a committee or higher-ups. You spend months putting together the proposal, and when you ask for questions at the end of your presentation, they fixate on one or two minor, non-substantive details.

Part of this stems from Parkinson’s law, but part also stems from corporate social norms. If you spend 45 minutes giving a presentation, ask for feedback, and those to whom you were presenting have nothing to say, others might think they weren’t listening (or worse, have nothing to add).

Honeypots

If you’ve been around software long enough, there’s also a good chance you’ve heard the term “honeypot.” Honeypots come in many forms, from Tom Clancy novels to real-life KGB operations, but in computer security, a honeypot is essentially an electronic sting operation.

A honeypot looks attractive (and natural) but is ultimately fictional and designed to ensnarl the attacker. You might, for example, add a field to a form that’s only visible to computers in hopes of detecting automated submissions or an easily hackable but fake server to a network in hopes of detecting intruders.

Putting the two concepts together, if you know those to whom you’re presenting need to say something, and see the type of thing they’re most likely to say, why not provide them with deliberate, low-risk opportunities to contribute?

An old idea with a new name

The idea of a “bikeshed honeypot” (as I’m calling it) isn’t new. The earliest reference I can find is an MSDN blog from 2005 where it’s called “The Admiral’s Pipe,” the idea being that Russian submariners would leave one fairly obvious pipe uncleaned before their admiral’s regular inspection. “The admiral would find this pipe, insist that it be cleaned, and feel satisfied that he found a problem and not dig any deeper,” one Microsoft manager said.

The idea resurfaced again in 2010 on a now-defunct Stack Overflow thread (made famous by Coding Horror in 2012) as “a duck,” the legend of a game developer who perfectly animated the game’s queen character, then unceremoniously added an easily removable pet duck to every one of her scenes for the producer to criticize (and ultimately remove).

Bikeshed honeypots in the corporate world

A bikeshed honeypot is a mistake, obvious flaw, or trivial decision that you purposely place (or leave) in a proposal in hopes that those to whom you’re seeking input will fixate on the honeypot (“bikeshed”), diverting their attention from the aspects of your proposal that you feel most strongly about. It’s the inflatable tanks on D-Day. It’s a magician’s carefully rehearsed misdirection.

For example, you might propose a new pricing scheme but make the price point $20.00 instead of $19.99, or suggest a new menu item with a facially uncreative name, in both cases, allowing others to come in and “save the day.” The trick is to make it subtle enough that the commenter feels clever and satisfied pointing it out but not so subtle that it’s overlooked entirely (or so substantial that it can’t be changed if they don’t).

Conclusion

I can’t, in good conscience, advocate that you use this tactic (or say that I’ve used it). You’re essentially trolling your audience — saying something hoping to provoke a specific response with potentially disastrous consequences. That said, if you’ve been around corporate culture long enough, there’s also a good chance you’ve seen it before and now at least have a name for it (or three).

Originally published March 1, 2017 | View revision history

If you enjoyed this post, you might also enjoy:

Ben Balter is the Director of Hubber Enablement within the Office of the COO at GitHub, the world’s largest software development platform, ensuring all Hubbers can do their best (remote) work. Previously, he served as the Director of Technical Business Operations, and as Chief of Staff for Security, he managed the office of the Chief Security Officer, improving overall business effectiveness of the Security organization through portfolio management, strategy, planning, culture, and values. As a Staff Technical Program manager for Enterprise and Compliance, Ben managed GitHub’s on-premises and SaaS enterprise offerings, and as the Senior Product Manager overseeing the platform’s Trust and Safety efforts, Ben shipped more than 500 features in support of community management, privacy, compliance, content moderation, product security, platform health, and open source workflows to ensure the GitHub community and platform remained safe, secure, and welcoming for all software developers. Before joining GitHub’s Product team, Ben served as GitHub’s Government Evangelist, leading the efforts to encourage more than 2,000 government organizations across 75 countries to adopt open source philosophies for code, data, and policy development. More about the author →

This page is open source. Please help improve it.

Edit