I've used Handy with very varying results. I ended up ditching them because I couldn't get the same cleaner regularly. To use Handy, I would have to take the day off every time I wanted a cleaning, so that I could meet and vet the new cleaner.
One time, a new cleaner showed up, but I wasn't home. She didn't have the key, and so she couldn't clean. I asked for a refund and never got it.
I am assuming based on this -He explained “CWA” stood for “Crackas With Attitude,” which he said referred to him and a classmate with whom he smokes pot.- The NY Post went for a dramatic title. But I could be wrong. The NY Post is known for such "wild titles" for attention.
There have been some posts on this thread saying that reddit is losing users for bad reasons. The users want to make hiring decisions, or approve of hate boards. That might be true, but there's one damn good reason to leave.
The CEO went on reddit to explain her decision. It comes down to "the software is bad, and we'll release better software". She did not acknowledge her mistakes. Nor did she explain why she reacted before the fix was ready. Instead, she blamed it on the developers.
This is cowardly and self-serving. If reddit is in the hands of a person with no loyalty to her customers, they're going out of business. If Pao is still CEO by Monday night, reddit is done.
I always use an in-between system. My configuration library allows me to set a default, if the parameter is not found in the config file. I always set a reasonable default, and then only override if necessary. This keeps the configuration files small, keeps the default value with the code, but allows you maximum flexibility, just in case.
Another tactic that has worked well for me is to expose a flat namespace of flags and tunable parameters in config while shunning instantiation of complex object graphs. Complex nesting in configuration tends to be too "raw" for users and sysops, and hurts usability.
I do the same. I also keep the configuration centralized so all access goes through one class. I also allow defaults in the config file along with specific values based on what environment you are, such as production or UT, etc...
Huh. I read your comment more as "you can be perceived as an expert in your trade and still suck at it." Groping a potential client's boobs is a clear sign of sucking at being a VC.
Let me turn this question around a little. I'm a manager of a software development department. I have a coder who works best at night. I got upset with him for falling asleep at his desk. Not once, but many times. He tells me "I'm up all night working".
To make this situation worse, our office is very over-crowded. It's hard for me to see how anyone gets anything done.
But, we have meetings the devs need to be at. Project scoping, standups with the stakeholders, etc. Plus, major architecture decisions are made in person. So, we have a pretty strict "work from home only twice per week" rule.
How do I let this developer work when he is at his best, without excluding him from critical decisions? And, how do I encourage him to work at his best, without encouraging the lower-performing members to see it as an opportunity to slack off?
I manage people, am managed, and work strange hours.
In the scenario you describe, you have set of inconsistent requirements:
1. A developer that works strange hours
2. A need to get everybody in the same room
3. The "perception problem", a.k.a. snide remarks from the peanut gallery.
The first thing to do is to be a good technical manager and admit that you do, in fact, have inconsistent requirements. Something on this list must change. You cannot satisfy all three.
The next thing to look at is what is the best (or least-bad) requirement to change.
The simplest option is to fire the developer. I don't actually recommend that, but it is simple. Embedded in that statement is the implicit assumption that you will never again hire someone who works odd hours, and in my admittedly biased experience, people who work odd hours tend to be good, so there is a hidden cost to that scenario.
A more complicated option is to figure out how to eliminate or reduce your dependence on in-person meetings. For example, having discussions via email or on GitHub. I would probably argue that if your software developers are having meetings more than 0.5 times per day, they are not being productive to start with, so there are reasons independent of this particular developer to study that problem. For more on this strategy, I would recommend looking at the GitHub model. [1]
Finally, to address the third issue, you need a performance review mechanism that isn't attendance-based. For example, consider mechanisms that are feature-based or deliverable-based. Attendance-based performance is bad for a lot of reasons independent of any particular developer's situation--it motivates working hard instead of working smart, and so on.
The thing to see here is that you're either going to have to change the environment or the developers you place in it. Personally, I would recommend the former, but in any case, something's going to move. The advantage of changing something now is that you get to decide what to change. If you let the situation run its course, it will change in a manner and at a time that will be less convenient.
From my experience for meetings with the higher ups you only need to include the chief architect/project leader who can give you a bird's eye view. That person probably doesn't do much coding himself.
From there, have him communicate with the rest of the team on what to do - he should be able to do it via group chatrooms, conference skype calls and emails. I'm sure there is a time that's convenient for literally everybody to meet, even if not everyone will be meeting in person.
Hope your developer doesn't realize there are places he could work that won't care what hours he keeps?
Seems like (a) if you focus on results rather than appearances, there won't be a problem with lower-performing members getting the wrong idea, and (b) sounds like you have a lot of meetings: are they really all as necessary as you think they are?
EDIT: joke aside, I am thankful to the grandparent for posting the question. I have the same question, with the difference that I also know the other side. So I am following the answers closely.
You really think that your productivity has risen more than 10% every year? Do you have any numbers to back that up? I know you use a ticket tracking system. You can add up all your completed story points, by year, pretty easily. If you're really getting 10% better every year, consistently, it should be easy to ask for a bigger raise.
My experience is that developers don't increase their value as fast as they increase their pay.
Not a question, just saying thanks. Your articles in the 1990s on VGA's modeX were the basis for a long-time obsession of mine: writing VGA graphic drivers to support better ways to display fractals. My college senior thesis was based on it.
Since then, Dr. Dobbs has been the shining example of highly technical material.
Huh. I started off laughing at this comment. But, I work for an organic grocery company. Kitchen stocked with fruit, salad, healthy nut butters, etc. We ship frequently. I wonder if there is something to this.
Long term probably. I've read tents of studies on the topic and books on similar topic. Junk food has long term effects, non of which are good. They can affect various things, some of which, directly or indirectly, affect higher order thinking, levels of energy, mood, activity and etc.
Also *x increased chance of various debilitating diseases.
Not to sound like a crazy health nut - there are two stupendous studies on the citizens of Okinawa (The Okinawa project) and China (The China study) that leave little doubt on the long term effects of junk foods.
Boulder tends to have more startups. TechStars is there, and so a lot of small companies are spawned from there. Denver has more established companies, including a lot in healthcare. Fort Collins is a smaller city, and I'm not as familiar with the job situation there. But, it seems to me to be kind of in-between. Smaller companies, but not so many new startups.
One time, a new cleaner showed up, but I wasn't home. She didn't have the key, and so she couldn't clean. I asked for a refund and never got it.