 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 13/11/2013 23:19, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :
>>> Enterprise Java Beans... LMAO!
>>
>> good to know I brought to your attention this decade-old tech
>
> You know, I once started reading about WTF a "bean" actually is...
>
> ...a decade later, I *still* have no idea! I hypothesise that it's a
> software design fad.
>
> (It still amuses me how every five years or so the industry oscillates
> between thinking that fat clients are best, and then thinking that thin
> clients are best. In truth, both have advantages. But at any given
> moment, the industry claims that one is "the future" and the other is
> "legacy"...)
they have the same oscillations about their market: "we need to extend
the applications of our product(s) to new domain"..."we need concentrate
on our heart-skill and drop the border for better competitivity"...
The military had it easier: To Do and Undo is still a work, do not
execute an order before the counter-order has arrived.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> *mumble something about the company not actually having any defined
>> direction*
>
> Certainly someone must have an idea what the company does.
Remember that "the company" consists of less than 10 humans [decimal].
When a company is that tiny, they don't necessarily have a grand
"corporate vision" laid out in meticulous detail.
From what I can gather, the business owner's plan is to make a product
that does everything for everybody. Every time a customer mentions
something the product doesn't do, we must immediately implement that
feature.
I presume I don't need to explain why this is a flawed approach?
> You're very
> secretive about even where you work, so it's kinda difficult to provide
> specific information.
>
> What market does the company serve? Who are its competitors?
Put simply, we make stuff used by several foreign governments, and if
you want to know exactly what it does, you're going to need security
clearance.
Not joking.
That probably makes it sound *far* more exciting than it actually is.
But obviously I'm not going to sit here and talk about it on some random
Internet forum that anybody can read.
What I can tell you is this: There are only so many governments in the
world. So our market is small, and competing products number dozens
rather than thousands or something.
>> Thing is, if I say "I wrote some code", that's too short. And if I
>> describe everything I implemented - even just the noteworthy stuff -
>> that's *way* too long.
>
> There's a middle ground. "I wrote code that does 'x'" - as a summary,
> not a detailed description.
Well, this year I wrote code for about 25 different small tasks. A list
of 25 items seems a little excessive though...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:49:36 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> *mumble something about the company not actually having any defined
>>> direction*
>>
>> Certainly someone must have an idea what the company does.
>
> Remember that "the company" consists of less than 10 humans [decimal].
> When a company is that tiny, they don't necessarily have a grand
> "corporate vision" laid out in meticulous detail.
Well, I'm assuming it's not a lawnmowing business, or a garden centre, or
an aircraft manufacturer.
So the product must do *something* specific.
> From what I can gather, the business owner's plan is to make a product
> that does everything for everybody. Every time a customer mentions
> something the product doesn't do, we must immediately implement that
> feature.
So, I take it that the product is an accounting product that does asset
tracking, maintenance management planning, fleet management, building
security access, general spreadsheet/word processing/presentation tools,
car diagnostics, virus scanning, automated teller machine management,
city planning, scheduling of police department rosters, web hosting,
Linux kernel tuning, ... - all of that?
> I presume I don't need to explain why this is a flawed approach?
I presume I don't need to go on with my previous paragraph, no? There is
*some* sort of scope. I've worked with companies that don't have a
"grand corporate vision laid out in meticulous detail" but it was still
possible to say "here's what we do" or "here's what our goals are".
So that's the starting point. You know you don't mow lawns for pay. You
know you write software that does *something*. Within the scope of that
"something," it may be broadly defined, but the scope isn't going to be
"do everything software could possibly do for anyone anywhere".
>> You're very secretive about even where you work, so it's kinda
>> difficult to provide specific information.
>>
>> What market does the company serve? Who are its competitors?
>
> Put simply, we make stuff used by several foreign governments, and if
> you want to know exactly what it does, you're going to need security
> clearance.
>
> Not joking.
So, I'm going to assume it's not lawn mower scheduling. :)
> That probably makes it sound *far* more exciting than it actually is.
> But obviously I'm not going to sit here and talk about it on some random
> Internet forum that anybody can read.
>
> What I can tell you is this: There are only so many governments in the
> world. So our market is small, and competing products number dozens
> rather than thousands or something.
That's a fair thing to say. So, you know that you compete in a certain
market. That defines the scope of what you are working on. You probably
don't work on it all, so limit what you include in your self-assessment
to what the specific code you wrote does for the product and what it
brings to the product. Don't say things like "if I didn't do it, someone
else would" because the point of the self-assessment is that /you did
it/. It wasn't someone else.
>>> Thing is, if I say "I wrote some code", that's too short. And if I
>>> describe everything I implemented - even just the noteworthy stuff -
>>> that's *way* too long.
>>
>> There's a middle ground. "I wrote code that does 'x'" - as a summary,
>> not a detailed description.
>
> Well, this year I wrote code for about 25 different small tasks. A list
> of 25 items seems a little excessive though...
Start with the list of 25 items, then work with your manager to classify
the items in more broad categories if necessary.
I had performance reviews/self assessments/goals that included maybe 4 or
5 main categories, each with a half dozen items under them. That's not
unusual.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:14:00 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> If it were noticed that I was only pretending to work, I'd probably be
> fired on the spot. That doesn't mean that my work is critical to meeting
> deadlines - it's just that, why would you pay somebody to do nothing?
They actually hired you to do a job, and you're doing it - so as a self-
assessment, you need to talk about how you're doing the job they're
paying you to do.
You're still relatively new to the organization, so it's entirely
possible that your tasks to date haven't been mission-critical deadline
items, but you need to talk about them in the assessment, certainly.
Getting things done earns you more responsibility, more visibility, and
ultimately (it's generally hoped) more pay.
So look at this another way - they interviewed you, hired you, and seem
to be happy with the job you're doing, right? So don't tell them they're
stupid by saying that what you do doesn't matter.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/11/2013 11:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:14:00 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> If it were noticed that I was only pretending to work, I'd probably be
>> fired on the spot. That doesn't mean that my work is critical to meeting
>> deadlines - it's just that, why would you pay somebody to do nothing?
>
> They actually hired you to do a job, and you're doing it - so as a self-
> assessment, you need to talk about how you're doing the job they're
> paying you to do.
>
> You're still relatively new to the organization, so it's entirely
> possible that your tasks to date haven't been mission-critical deadline
> items, but you need to talk about them in the assessment, certainly.
> Getting things done earns you more responsibility, more visibility, and
> ultimately (it's generally hoped) more pay.
>
> So look at this another way - they interviewed you, hired you, and seem
> to be happy with the job you're doing, right? So don't tell them they're
> stupid by saying that what you do doesn't matter.
>
Jim is perfectly right. He comes from a culture that, we in Britain are
drifting to, like a boat in a whirlpool.
Think about it like a justification for your job. You either play the
game or opt out and be expendable. I opted out. For my last assessment I
went into the maintenance supervisor’s office with my trousers over my
arm and said that it was his job not mine to give me an assessment. It
did not go down well. Now I am a contractor and I will never have one
again. I don’t think that you would like the lifestyle, of either.
Blow your own horn because the days that someone else would do it for
you are long gone. :-(
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/11/2013 10:49 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Put simply, we make stuff used by several foreign governments, and if
> you want to know exactly what it does, you're going to need security
> clearance.
>
So! I have that. (When you work in the nuclear industry it is
mandatory.) So has doctor, you know who.
> Not joking.
Not joking.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-11-13 17:49, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>> *mumble something about the company not actually having any defined
>>> direction*
>>
>> Certainly someone must have an idea what the company does.
>
> Remember that "the company" consists of less than 10 humans [decimal].
> When a company is that tiny, they don't necessarily have a grand
> "corporate vision" laid out in meticulous detail.
>
> From what I can gather, the business owner's plan is to make a product
> that does everything for everybody. Every time a customer mentions
> something the product doesn't do, we must immediately implement that
> feature.
>
> I presume I don't need to explain why this is a flawed approach?
>
>> You're very
>> secretive about even where you work, so it's kinda difficult to provide
>> specific information.
>>
>> What market does the company serve? Who are its competitors?
>
> Put simply, we make stuff used by several foreign governments, and if
> you want to know exactly what it does, you're going to need security
> clearance.
>
> Not joking.
>
Them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinFisher
> That probably makes it sound *far* more exciting than it actually is.
> But obviously I'm not going to sit here and talk about it on some random
> Internet forum that anybody can read.
>
> What I can tell you is this: There are only so many governments in the
> world. So our market is small, and competing products number dozens
> rather than thousands or something.
>
>>> Thing is, if I say "I wrote some code", that's too short. And if I
>>> describe everything I implemented - even just the noteworthy stuff -
>>> that's *way* too long.
>>
>> There's a middle ground. "I wrote code that does 'x'" - as a summary,
>> not a detailed description.
>
> Well, this year I wrote code for about 25 different small tasks. A list
> of 25 items seems a little excessive though...
No. Not at all.
You may want to group them in categories if some of those tasks are
similar. Or only give 2 or 3 main ones as an example.
Ex:
- Created installation scripts for X, Y, and Z.
- Created, implemented testing plan for 23 modules (main ones being Foo,
Bar and Baz).
- Etc...
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-11-13 19:57, Stephen a écrit :
> On 13/11/2013 10:49 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Put simply, we make stuff used by several foreign governments, and if
>> you want to know exactly what it does, you're going to need security
>> clearance.
>>
>
> So! I have that. (When you work in the nuclear industry it is
> mandatory.) So has doctor, you know who.
>
So do I, but I work in one of the colonies. It may not be recognized.
>> Not joking.
>
> Not joking.
>
Not joking.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> There's a middle ground. "I wrote code that does 'x'" - as a summary,
>>> not a detailed description.
>>
>> Well, this year I wrote code for about 25 different small tasks. A list
>> of 25 items seems a little excessive though...
>
> No. Not at all.
>
> You may want to group them in categories if some of those tasks are
> similar. Or only give 2 or 3 main ones as an example.
>
> Ex:
> - Created installation scripts for X, Y, and Z.
> - Created, implemented testing plan for 23 modules (main ones being Foo,
> Bar and Baz).
> - Etc...
Now that seems reasonable...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/11/2013 11:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> You're still relatively new to the organization, so it's entirely
> possible that your tasks to date haven't been mission-critical deadline
> items, but you need to talk about them in the assessment, certainly.
> Getting things done earns you more responsibility, more visibility, and
> ultimately (it's generally hoped) more pay.
In such a tiny company, *everybody* is already very near the top of the
tree - because it's only a tiny tree. (More of a shrub really...) ;-)
> So look at this another way - they interviewed you, hired you, and seem
> to be happy with the job you're doing, right? So don't tell them they're
> stupid by saying that what you do doesn't matter.
Fair enough.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
