Making the code capable of the correct (but apparently not desired behavior), with a simple flag to turn it on is often the right solution (when you've received insurmountable push back, "Disagree and Commit!"). At that point, you document it in an oncall wiki and when someone finally decides it's actually a bug (or the people that said no 'go away'), it's sitting there with a good audit trail so you can tell your teams oncall one or two words and they can flip it over in a few minutes (after some QA). Note: I only learned this after surviving a really bad manager. I'm not saying you should have known to do it.
Re:Steve's Google Platform rant
by potatolicious on Wednesday October 12, 2011 @04:58PM
(#3104578)
> ""But, I pointed it out months ago"... would result in "therefore its your fault because you weren't persuasive enough!""
And then this would get noted in your performance review.
Weakness: bias for action.
Re:Steve's Google Platform rant
by simplekoala on Thursday October 13, 2011 @01:38AM
(#3106249)
LOL at bias of action :) Reminds me of ex-manager's parrotry of Amazon's values
Absolutely. Hell, at one point, praise for me from a former manager in a performance review was twisted around and used against me.
If I never hear the phrase "Bias for action" again, I'll be happy. (Though I laughed when you used it.)
Re:Steve's Google Platform rant
by serverascode on Thursday October 13, 2011 @05:39PM
(#3108882)
Wow. That last part "you failed to take initiative" or "You're not a team player" makes me sad. That's a fubared situation.
You can't make people take responsibility. Hell, Bezos would probably say I should have made the change anyway "You failed to take initiative". But if I had made the change, I would have been fired "You're not a team player".
Asscovering is the rule of the day and its very easy in that environment.