[Sussex] Giving something back

[Geoff Teale]

Morning all,

*yawn*

very disapointed to see that my company blocks my e-mails from home because
they are GPG signed - what the hell is wrong with that?


Steve wrote:
------------
>You'll get this in any company.  Unless you're employed for what you have
>already done and are famous for it (like Alan Cox).

Which was part of my point.  This was an idealogical rant.  I don't expect
to have a job like Alan Cox's but I still live with the hope that somewhere
there are companies that don't reward project managers for agreeing to
impossible deadlines and then try to make their staff achieve them - to my
mind software project management is about managing something through an
iterative evolutionary process.  This is something you can read on in any
Project management book, however it seems that no matter how many of these
books projects managers read it always ends up like this:

for (long int corporate_crap = 0; corporate_crap <= TA_PATIENCE;
corporate_crap++){

	// 08:00 [Friday]
	projectManager->obtain_vague_description_of_task;

	//16:45 [Friday] 
	//	Project manager furnishes technical 
	// 	architect with brief description 	
	//	of project

	technicalArchitect->knowledge->add("Build an integrated intranet 
							solution to enhance 
							communication within
the 
							corporation and
service each 
							departments needs
efficiently");


	// 16:46 [Friday] 
	projectManager->request(	technicalArchitect, 	
						"can you give me 
						some rough timescales 
						for that before I leave 
						at 17:30?" 	);

	// 17:30 [Friday] 
 	// Technical architect furnishes Project Manager 
      // with his best guess for developing some vague 
	// system that could be as simple as installing 
	// Zope and knocking up a quick website.
	// It could alse mean implementing a content 
	// management system, a workflow system, a 
	// document management system and a security 
	// architecture because management only buy M$FT.

	projectManager->knowledge->add(
technicalArchitect->response(ROUGH_GUESS, "6 months(?)");

	// 10:00 [Monday] 
	if (projectManager->timescale > MAXIMUM_TIMESCALE_WITHOUT_REVIEW){
		projectManager->timescale = MAXIMUM_TIMESCALE_WITHOUT_REVIEW
//2 Months
	}	
	
	seniorManager->knowledge->add(
projectManager->response(CONCRETE_TIMESCALE, "2 months");

	// ... /Time passes / ....
	for (int week = 1; week < 7; week++) {
		technicalArchitect->work();
		technicalArchitect->team->work();
		projectManager->goto(MEETINGS);
		projectManager->play(GOLF);
	}

	// 09:00 [Wednesday 7 weeks later] 
	//	In the team meeting boss expresses his concern 
	// 	that we do not look like finishing the project 
	//	(that it turns out would have been estimated at 
	//	about 18 months work if any real details had been 
	//	given the technical architect) within the 2 months 
	//	we (we ???) promised.  He tells us that our bonuses, 
	//	pay rises and continued employment are dependant 
	//	on meeting this target and that he take a dim view 
	//	on anyone working less that 14 hours a day from now on.

	projectManager->threaten(technicalArchitect);
	projectManager->threaten(technicalArchitect->team);

	while (project->status != COMPLETE){
		
		// 11:00 [Wednesday]
		projectManager->goto(LUNCH);

		// 14:20 [Wednesday] 
		projectManager->return; 
		try{
			technicalArchitect->get_from_machine(COKE);
			technicalArchitect->get_from_machine(SNICKERS);
		}
		catch (broken_machine_error bme){
			// This always happens.
			technicalArchitect->funds -= 0.90;
		} 

		// 16:30 [Wednesday] 
		projectManager->goto(HOME); 

		// 22:15 [Wednesday] 
		technicalArchitect->goto(HOME);
	}

	// 10:00 [Monday] 
	seniorManager->request(	projectManager,
					"Why was the project
					delivered in a three 
					times the planned 
					timescale?" );

	projectManager->blame( technicalArchitect );
	seniorManager->blame( technicalArchitect );
} // Around we got again

>So speaks a man with is pants on view.  If your not a builder then
>you must be married. :-)

;)

>Joking aside, there is a lot of OSS out there that isn't worth much.
>Enlightenment has been criticised for being poorly designed and coded.
>Rasterman, to name but one, is not a "professional" coder but a
>graphics artist that expresses himself in software.

Yes, but:

1. If it's bad, you can find out (and possible fix it).  My point, a lot of
bad proramming is hidden behind the binaries.
2. I think the average programmer would endevour to do their best if their
work was open to public scrutiny.

>I'm know there are some very good closed source projects that are
>well written -  I've written some of them.  Don't paint all closed
>source with the same sh*t that is brushed on your current bug bear.

OK, fair enough. I agree.  I'm not saying that all closed software is bad -
I too have worked on some very good projects and am aware of other ones.
What I am saying is that customers cannot be sure of the quality of software
that is closed source.  It's not just a matter of whether it runs or not (
my companies product certainly runs ) but also how easy it is to maintain.

>I doubt you could do all you claim.  Good code is refactored as
>new ideas and expereace come to play.  The INSIDE code I published
>a while back I'm quite proude of - but it will be improved (a lot)
>by me.  It's just a pity that I don't have time time at the moment.

:)  OK OK, it's a major exageration driven by my exasperation.  Really I'm
just frustrated by the utter waste of my skills.  This place seems to jump
from giving me stupidly trivial tasks (and sending me on courses to teach me
about "if" statement - no really!) to being disapointed that I can't deliver
the impossible on a 2 week timescale.

>OOS allows others to added their good ideas.  The ego of the
>original has to be suppressed in the light of this.

Agreed.  To my mind this is a Good Thing tm.  Programmers need to learn to
relax about their code - we all get awfully defensive of our code when other
people get involved.

>It's not just there.  Alan Cox and Stephen Teewlie are good examples
>here.  Remember we here about the best (and the worst) by the average
>is just to common to get a look in.

1. Alan Cox works for a US company who let him work in the UK.
2. Alan Cox works for a purely LINUX orientated company and orks on the
kernel - this is not what I was talking about.
3. I agree that the average is not what I am describing - but I am talking
about change.  I'm dealing in ideals - I don't think this will happen, I
said I can't believe big British business can adapt and I know it will
suffer for it.  There is only so far humans will be pushed in a bad
direction before they _make_ things change.  I think Nik is right when he
says it will change when people set out on their own and *make* it change.

>Okay - I take the point - but even abroad these are the excpetions not
>the rule.

Yup.  I'm not going to suggest that anywhere is perfect.  From my myopic
perspective however, the UK seems particularly bad in this respect.

>I do think that there is something fundamentally wrong with British
>Management.  It's summed up with the phrase: "Promoted to your level
>of incompetence."

I think we beat the ideas out of these people.  Promotion tends to come from
towing the company line - not from innovation or even success - this is what
I mean when I talk about rewarding mediocrity.

>Not true; there are may examples where this is not true.  Lotus and
>Morgan in the car industry, Dyson in white goods.  But I do agree
>that most big companies are stuck in the mud.  But isn't that true
>of the US too.  Look at the DMCA.

These companies are exceptions as you say, they are marked by being
craftsman led manufacturers and valuing quality above pretty much anything
else.  A lot of companys talk that talk, these are examples of those that
walk the walk.  Dyson is a good example of a company that is thriving
despite the British attitude.  Hoover (who once turned down Dyson) now
suffer a legal battle because there very survival required them to illegaly
copy his designs.  Here we see innovation and change driving a market -
almost every British business would act in the manner Hoover did.

>I'm not sure I can fully agree with that.  Do IBM really get
>Open Source?  No.  Why?  They have not given up Software
>Patience.  There are many companies wanting Linux and they're
>just responding to that business need.  IBM, SGI, Sun etc can
>lenience software for no fee as they sell hardware.  The 
>software is the vehicle for selling hardware.  Also the
>projects turned over to OSS are old hat by then (NFS).

Hmm.. well Apache2 gained a lot by having several developers employed by IBM
working full time on the project - Gnome2 and OpenOffice both had the same
from Sun.  These are relevant, new projects.  We all benefit from them (yes
they could have been developed without these people, but it would have been
a longer slower process) and IBM and SUN "get it" enough to realise it is
worth there while to behave in this manner.  Yes they are commerically
driven but the realise they have to give to recieve and that this activity
raises there profile in the community and helps ship WebSphere,DB2, LX50's
and Sun ONE as well as Apache and Gnome.  In this respect they are no
different to Nik - yes his reasons may be more noble, but ultimately he is
exploiting Open Source software for commercial gain.  Nik, Sun and IBM all
also give back in order to support this.

>True.  If a project can show a profit in five years its canned.
>Same is true of US.  (But not Japan).

Yes.  The USA has the same problems as we do - but they do have an
investment culture where start-ups are concerned - silicon valley would not
exist without it!

>True, but that is how empires fall.  The British Empire fell because
>we believed we couldn't fail - an internal process.  Was the fall of
>the Roman Empire really that different?  I know the Vandals attacked,
>but wasn't Roman so convinced of its own invincibility?  Just like
>we were with India?

More importantly, why is Britain no longer a leading industrial nation?  You
cover this later in your response, so I'll not go back there.

>If you want to go to somewhere were they are allowing thinking out-
>side the box then it looks like S. America, Africa, India or China.
>But they'll try anyting to catch up to the rich west.

..and eventually they will surpass us.  Again, this is the point I was
making, we are on the slippery slope and only a change in attitude can
change that.

>At the moment I think that the UK and US software engeers are better
>value for money (less bugs per line of code) than India and other
>3rd worlders.  But that will change.  Sure India is cheeper but as
>I have said elsewhere engineer costs are not that significult.
>As the quality of the workforce improves so to their salaries.
>Look at Twain, or better yet Japan, as an example of this.

THat makes sense - but it doesn't stop more and more companys shipping
technical roles out of the west and into the east - the people making the
decisions are accountants, not IT people, not craftsmen.

>If you want to be paid to develop software you have to work within
>the company structure.  That is a fact of life; live with it.

Indeed... ...and 'deed I do.  But if we don't strive for something better it
will never happen.  When I see the hours people work these days, in order to
make enough money to put down a deposit on a ridiculously prived house, I am
reminded of the workshops and factories of the 17th century through to the
early 20th century.  Ultimately unions rose to smash the effects of rampant
capitalism - the rich getting richer and everyone else working harder to
sustain this can only go on for so long.  Every year the average working day
increases by a few minutes - that cannot continue for ever.  I think
adoption of Open Source comes hand in hand with a different attitude to
business.

Has anyone here read the book "The Hecker Ethic" - it makes the point far
more elequantly than I could.

>There are many who start "companys" on a new idea and many fall
>by the way side.  Those that make it we get to hear about.  Those
>that don't are never heard of.

Yes.  There are thousands of companies trudging along as well without ever
making it big.  There is a lot fo risk in changing or starting up, but there
is equal risk in staying static while the world overtakes you or worse still
deriving growth by squeezing more and more out of fewer resources.  Rentokil
Initial is a fine example of a huge company that nearly fell to pieces
because it followed the later strategy for 20 years. 

>Of the many small computer software companies being run out of a
>small office or room back in 60s & 70s few made it biggest; I 
>wouldn't want to work for most of them.

Interestingly there was an aticle recently that discussed what made the
likes of Sun and indeed Microsoft succesful where other companies that
looked very promising failed.  The common factor is apparantly that
succesful companies are still run by their geeky founders who understand
their market and maintain the good spirit of the company.  Unsuccesful
companies usually come under to much influence from venture capitalists and
banks who bring their cronies onto the board and start applying MBA business
administration to the companys.  They kill of R&D and innovation and destroy
company culture.

>See above.  I know the general note of my reply is doom and gloom
>(must like your posting) but I have come to the conclusion that if
>you want to do something different you need to strike out on your
>own (or with a few like-minded individuals).  Success is not 
>guaranteed. To quote from "Dune":
>  "They tried and failed?"
>  "They tried and died!"

:) Nice..  It's scary but I think it is ultimately going to be the way to
go.

>If you do go it alone that brings its own set of problems and 
>restuctions.

Your telling me !

[2nd e-mail starts here]
> I think you're missing a big part of this process.  Big 
> companies can lobby Parlement to pass laws in their favour.

*Yay* - true cynicism.  So can collaborative groups of small companies.
 
> But we as voters have a bigger power (on mass) we vote the
> PMs into the house!  But do we do anything on mass?  Rally?
> Write Letters? No!!!!!
> <snip>

Agreed,  we're politically apethetic - I wonder how people will react when
we realise our pensions are increasingly worthless and we're all going to
live out our days in poverty whil company directors and big investors grow
fat on the money they pulled out of our pockets.


> And I for one thing that you have an idea that will work, and 
> provide a living.  I would like to follow you're lead, or jump
> on your wagon.

[AOL mode] Me too! ;)
 
> But as the busness grows so you will be able to support developer
> in those areas where it make sence.  Did RedHat start with a pool
> of developers, or did they get them to add "power" to their sales.
> "Look at use we have this may Linux Kernel Hackers!!!!"

Yay.. now you're getting what I was saying all along.
 
> See my other posting - but I think that number is a small 
> number over all.

Agreed, but it is at least there.  Here we are devoid of such companies and
organisations and that makes me sad.

-- 
GJT
geoff.teale at claybrook.co.uk





The above information is confidential to the addressee and may be privileged.  Unauthorised access and use is prohibited.
 
Internet communications are not secure and therefore this Company does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
 
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
 
Claybrook Computing Limited is a subsidiary of Claybrook Computing (Holdings) Limited
Registered Office: Abbey House. 282 Farnborough Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7NJ
Registered in England and Wales No 1287205
 
A Hogg Robinson plc company