 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I just sat down and read the new global backup and restore procedure the
guys are working on. They want my input on it.
On reading it, my initial reaction was "OMG, you have *got* to be
*kidding* me! WTF?!"
I'm now attempting to write a responce to them... Really struggling not
to be flippant here! Just how *do* you tell somebody that there ideas
are completely stupid in a tactful way?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Just how *do* you tell somebody that there ideas
> are completely stupid in a tactful way?
>
Try to understand where they are coming from. Empathy is underrated.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Galvin wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Just how *do* you tell somebody that there ideas are completely stupid
>> in a tactful way?
>>
>
> Try to understand where they are coming from. Empathy is underrated.
Yeah, what he said.
Think about it for a moment - how would you like people to respond to
something that you worked hard to put together and asked for feedback on.
If you reject their plan and submit a new one, your input will likely
get tossed.
If you make some good suggestions with supporting info, then some may
actually get incorporated. You may even be asked for more information.
The trick is in getting someone to see their own error and make their
own change on their own - something I am not good at. For some reason
people take things better that way.
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> Tom Galvin wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Just how *do* you tell somebody that there ideas are completely
>>> stupid in a tactful way?
>>>
>>
>> Try to understand where they are coming from. Empathy is underrated.
>
>
> Yeah, what he said.
Exactly.
Think of it in terms of "how would I teach/explain a complicated thing
to a naive user, or a child" kind of thing. Try to figure out why they
think it'll do what they want, then find the flaws in it. In other
words, try to work backwards from what they wrote to what they expect it
to accomplish, then explain the ways in which it could fail.
Doing this can be extremely difficult if you're very well versed in the
field.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:32:09 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> I just sat down and read the new global backup and restore procedure the
> guys are working on. They want my input on it.
>
> On reading it, my initial reaction was "OMG, you have *got* to be
> *kidding* me! WTF?!"
>
> I'm now attempting to write a responce to them... Really struggling not
> to be flippant here! Just how *do* you tell somebody that there ideas
> are completely stupid in a tactful way?
Don't tell them their ideas are bad; present better ideas instead. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:47:36 -0400, Tom Austin wrote:
> Tom Galvin wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Just how *do* you tell somebody that there ideas are completely stupid
>>> in a tactful way?
>>>
>>>
>> Try to understand where they are coming from. Empathy is underrated.
>
>
> Yeah, what he said.
>
>
>
> Think about it for a moment - how would you like people to respond to
> something that you worked hard to put together and asked for feedback
> on.
>
> If you reject their plan and submit a new one, your input will likely
> get tossed.
>
> If you make some good suggestions with supporting info, then some may
> actually get incorporated. You may even be asked for more information.
>
> The trick is in getting someone to see their own error and make their
> own change on their own - something I am not good at. For some reason
> people take things better that way.
And this is more or less what I mean by "present better ideas" - Tom,
Tom, and Darren all three hit on a key part of this, which is to make
sure that you're not tearing down their ideas, but instead getting them
to see something that'll work better. It always works out better if
others can see that they've made a mistake rather than being told "dude,
you're just wrong on this". Sometimes the "you're just wrong" approach
is called for, but those times are not as frequent as most people think.
"Your baby's ugly" doesn't win friends and influence people. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I'm now attempting to write a responce to them... Really struggling not
> to be flippant here! Just how *do* you tell somebody that there ideas
> are completely stupid in a tactful way?
I have just sent a large... 10-point email... explaining... step by
step... in meticulous detail... precisely why I think that THIS PLAN IS
FRIGGIN RIDICULOUS!! >_<
Sorry, I ran out of calmness at the end there. Fortunately, you can edit
emails UNTIL you send them. ;-)
For anyone who's interested...
1. They want to keep backup tapes (even differentials) forever. (No
regulations require this.)
2. They want to allow the vagaries of the Gregorian calendar and its
lack of synchronisation with the 7-day week affect when our backups do
and don't happen.
3. They want to keep the weeks' tapes in the server room until the end
of the week.
4. They want to verify that tape restoration works by restoring a
standardised, unchanging 0.09 KB file and performing a visual inspection
to check that it "looks the same". (In fairness, if the backup software
says it's restored, you can be 99% sure it's fine. Usually if there's a
problem the software will complain that it "can't" restore the file,
rather than restore gibberish. But even so...)
5. The order in which tapes are run is not clearly described. In fact,
the relevant section is utterly incomprehensible. Surely *they* know
what they meant - but *I* haven't got a clue!
6. Similarly, there's a new form to fill out - but I don't understand
why, what does on it, or when it's meant to be done.
7. The procedure talks about "software backups". As most of you won't
know, the regulations make a distinction between "backups" and "archive
copies", and this document is confablating the two. The result is a most
inappropriate procedure, which is outside the scope of the document anyway.
8. Did I mention yet that THIS PLAN IS CRAZY?!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I have just sent a large... 10-point email... explaining... step by
> step... in meticulous detail... precisely why I think that THIS PLAN IS
> FRIGGIN RIDICULOUS!! >_<
>
> Sorry, I ran out of calmness at the end there. Fortunately, you can edit
> emails UNTIL you send them. ;-)
...and the guy just laughed and told me to put it into the comments
inside the Word document.
Great. Now I have to work out how Word's comment system works... :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4891b52d$1@news.povray.org...
> Invisible wrote:
>
> > I have just sent a large... 10-point email... explaining... step by
> > step... in meticulous detail... precisely why I think that THIS PLAN IS
> > FRIGGIN RIDICULOUS!! >_<
> >
> > Sorry, I ran out of calmness at the end there. Fortunately, you can edit
> > emails UNTIL you send them. ;-)
>
> ...and the guy just laughed and told me to put it into the comments
> inside the Word document.
>
> Great. Now I have to work out how Word's comment system works... :-S
In Word 2000, Tools -> Track Changes
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Great. Now I have to work out how Word's comment system works... :-S
>
> In Word 2000, Tools -> Track Changes
Track Changes is already turned on. What I need to do is somehow
comprehend the rat's nest of comments and alterations that are already
there, and figure out how to add my own comments. (And, frankly, given
that most of my comments aren't like "this sentence is should be
rephrased" but more "this entire document is fundamentally wrong", it's
not obvious where to put such comments...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
