Motivation of software professionals
in [Dot Net]
|
From: James Kanze on 8 Feb 2010 18:36 On Feb 8, 6:46 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...(a)seebs.net> wrote: > On 2010-02-08, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > The primary motivation there wasn't the money, it was the > visible demonstration that the management felt it was their > problem more than ours that the schedule had been wrong. > (Note the emphasis; it was not that we were behind the > schedule, it was that the schedule was, empirically, wrong.) Yes! I think that most people fundamentally like to help others, in one way or another. And someone saying that they screwed up, and asking for help, is a strong motivator for most people. On the other hand, threats almost never work. People don't work well when they feel threatened. -- James Kanze
From: Arved Sandstrom on 8 Feb 2010 18:39 Seebs wrote: > On 2010-02-08, Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: >> That's easy: anybody who isn't a member of a recognised engineering >> society should not be called an engineer and should be laughed out of >> town if they call themselves one. > > This strikes me as the polar opposite of an engineering mindset, which > would be that a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, regardless > of any labels. > > -s Insofar as competent and professional engineering societies set real standards for qualifications and conduct to be able to use the title "Engineer", and insofar as the vast majority of software developers have nothing like this at all, I see no problem here. AHS
From: Phil Carmody on 8 Feb 2010 18:44 Ivan Marsh <ivanmarsh(a)yahoo.com> writes: > Lew wrote: >> Ivan Marsh wrote: >>> The 1950's [sic] were totally awesome. >> >> Oh, yeah - the twin evils of McCarthyism and Communism. Racism. Sexism. >> The >> Cold War. Superpowers playing chess with smaller countries. Wars >> everywhere. >> Dictators. Massive stockpiling of nuclear and chemical weapons. Rapine >> of >> the planet. The birth of AIDS. Hideous fashions. >> >> Totally awesome. > > The complete lack of sarcasm... No, I think you'll find that Tom Lehrer was quite active in those days. Phil -- Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1
From: Seebs on 8 Feb 2010 18:50 On 2010-02-08, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Seebs wrote: >> On 2010-02-08, Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: >>> That's easy: anybody who isn't a member of a recognised engineering >>> society should not be called an engineer and should be laughed out of >>> town if they call themselves one. >> This strikes me as the polar opposite of an engineering mindset, which >> would be that a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, regardless >> of any labels. > Insofar as competent and professional engineering societies set real > standards for qualifications and conduct to be able to use the title > "Engineer", and insofar as the vast majority of software developers have > nothing like this at all, I see no problem here. Membership in an organization is not the same thing as meeting the formal standards that would be required by such an organization if it existed. In short, if there exists a set of qualifications and conduct which would be necessary to be a member of an organization, and membership confers the title "engineer", then having that set of qualifications and conduct ought to confer the title *with or without* membership in the organization. Meanwhile, at least some members of any given organization will usually not actually meet the nominal or formalized standard in one way or another. Measurement by proxy is not very good measurement. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Arved Sandstrom on 8 Feb 2010 19:01
Seebs wrote: > On 2010-02-08, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> Seebs wrote: >>> On 2010-02-08, Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: >>>> That's easy: anybody who isn't a member of a recognised engineering >>>> society should not be called an engineer and should be laughed out of >>>> town if they call themselves one. > >>> This strikes me as the polar opposite of an engineering mindset, which >>> would be that a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, regardless >>> of any labels. > >> Insofar as competent and professional engineering societies set real >> standards for qualifications and conduct to be able to use the title >> "Engineer", and insofar as the vast majority of software developers have >> nothing like this at all, I see no problem here. > > Membership in an organization is not the same thing as meeting the formal > standards that would be required by such an organization if it existed. > > In short, if there exists a set of qualifications and conduct which would > be necessary to be a member of an organization, and membership confers the > title "engineer", then having that set of qualifications and conduct ought > to confer the title *with or without* membership in the organization. > Meanwhile, at least some members of any given organization will usually > not actually meet the nominal or formalized standard in one way or another. At the moment those standards do not exist for the majority of software developers. So it's pretty much a moot point. If the standards did exist, how would you know that a person who claimed a title actually deserved it, without having them go through a certification process? [ SNIP ] AHS |