It's not related to the article content, but I can't help but notice the "diversity" in authorship grades: a senior staff, a (regular) senior, and a principal. I suppose grades are a key mechanism by which corporates keep their hamster wheels running.
I'm thankful that, at my $WORK, we're all software engineers by title, from the lowly interns to the CTO. Still, everybody knows who's who and whom to talk to, depending on the gravity of the issue.
> at my $WORK, we're all software engineers by title, from the lowly interns to the CTO. Still, everybody knows who's who and whom to talk to, depending on the gravity of the issue.
It's not exactly conducive to knowing that if you're a new starter though, is it. I imagine it takes quite a while to get to know, especially outside of your immediate remit.
Positions are better than titles for that. Compare "Principal Engineer" with no other info to "Software Engineer, Lead at Mobile UX".
You know if they are your boss, not how big of a boss they are. That's way more important unless your organization is a chaotic mess where managers feel like they can order around people from a different team. And then you got bigger problems.
Sure but that's just adding more rather than different information really?
Like if the title is Tech Lead, Staff, Principal or whatever there's an (often) unstated focus area. You're saying if you also state that, that's helpful. Yes it is! But if you only state that – Software Engineer, Mobile UX – it's helpful but you're back to having no idea of relative experience or decision-making power.
(If the org is truly flat and the intention is no inequality in 'decision-making power' etc. then fine, I suppose, but that's kind of a different conversation, pretty unusual, and I'm not sure how much I really believe it works (as in, is borne that way) in practice.)
It is similar writing an academic paper and getting it published. These blog post reflects on technical strength of the company, so it has to go through the vetting and approval before it gets out of the door, and intermediaries are added as authors.
In academic world, I hear, folks simply add the name of their professors due to their reputation. Of course, professors are putting their reputation at stake by giving a chance to the right students.
penguin_booze · · focus · HN ↗
I'm thankful that, at my $WORK, we're all software engineers by title, from the lowly interns to the CTO. Still, everybody knows who's who and whom to talk to, depending on the gravity of the issue.
high_na_euv · · focus · HN ↗
CTOs work is totally different from SE, so why s/he is SE?
Lets make your janitor can be SE too
orf · · focus · HN ↗
All engineers are equal, however some engineers are more equal than others?
ahoka · · focus · HN ↗
OJFord · · focus · HN ↗
It's not exactly conducive to knowing that if you're a new starter though, is it. I imagine it takes quite a while to get to know, especially outside of your immediate remit.
tancop · · focus · HN ↗
You know if they are your boss, not how big of a boss they are. That's way more important unless your organization is a chaotic mess where managers feel like they can order around people from a different team. And then you got bigger problems.
OJFord · · focus · HN ↗
Like if the title is Tech Lead, Staff, Principal or whatever there's an (often) unstated focus area. You're saying if you also state that, that's helpful. Yes it is! But if you only state that – Software Engineer, Mobile UX – it's helpful but you're back to having no idea of relative experience or decision-making power.
(If the org is truly flat and the intention is no inequality in 'decision-making power' etc. then fine, I suppose, but that's kind of a different conversation, pretty unusual, and I'm not sure how much I really believe it works (as in, is borne that way) in practice.)
orsenthil · · focus · HN ↗
In academic world, I hear, folks simply add the name of their professors due to their reputation. Of course, professors are putting their reputation at stake by giving a chance to the right students.