But that's one line from an entire article of benign behaviour.
You can't deploy whatever you want to production.
Now I'll agree that some of it is plain toxic. The premise here is a) do exactly what you're told and b) in exactly the way we tell you or c) you are mentally ill. Wow fuck everything about this, it sounds like extreme micro management.
Perhaps it's all they need to understand what kind of complexity they're adding (or what kind of simplicity you're not giving them credit for). This can serve as documentation, but adds a bit more clarity to the overhead that comes with these changes, which is easy to miss when you're in the thick of things. Then write a retrospective about how things went over, a week or two after the project is launched (things that were unexpected?). Force them to write design docs for implementing new technologies, before they're implemented. Other coders on the team will be annoyed by the person who isn't committing code daily, so this will mean that coder is admitting not to you, but to them, they're playing by different rules.Ģ. Make git commits a portion of things in those - so everybody has to say what they've done in git commits (obviously, this isn't 100% of things). For instance, enforce daily or semi-daily standups. The article misses some key things I would throw out there, here's to hoping they come to value with you.ġ. Successfully managing these can get complicated in the workplace due to the competing interests of the people you come into contact with during the course of your employment. Humans are social animals and will evaluate everything about you, including your technical competence, by the social signals you output. It takes a lot of work to maintain a good halo, and it should be considered your primary job duty if you wish to have a fulfilling career as an employee. If your colleagues and superiors are predisposed to interpret your actions favorably, they'll probably do so until you give them a reason not to, and vice-versa. The halo effect is going to be the primary determinant here. Let's fire him next time he gives us an excuse." It could either be interpreted as "Wow, that guy is such an amazing programmer that he was able to refactor our whole legacy system in his spare time! We should definitely keep him on board and learn from this kind of work, even if we can't do a full-scale replacement." or "Wow, that guy is so self-absorbed and unwilling to cooperate with his teammates that he went home in a fit of anger and thought he could replace 10 years of work in a few weekends! What an abrasive blowhard. How this would go down in your particular workplace all depends on the surrounding political and social context. Machiavelli claims that "nothing makes a Prince so well thought of as to undertake great enterprises and give striking proofs of his capacity." Independent of social context, this type of act is generally viewed favorably.
0 kommentar(er)
