Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[XP] Re: FW: Position of Power

Expand Messages
  • Joshua Macy/Towers Perrin
    Jim McFarland wrote: ... I think he means the job postings themselves. If you follow the link to the Zetec site, it doesn t appear at first glance that the
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      "Jim McFarland" wrote:

      "tim mackinnon" wrote:
      >> > We are located in Issaquah, WA outside Seattle. And we'll probably have
      >> > 6 - 10 job openings within the next 6 months, there is one currently
      >> > open (http://www.zetec.com/employment/jobs.htm).
      >>
      >> You may want to consider these adds - they seem quite XP unfriendly!

      >"XP unfriendly"? What do you mean? He mentioned openings on his team
      > at the end of a regular message. What is your objection?


      I think he means the job postings themselves. If you follow the link to the
      Zetec site, it doesn't appear at first glance that the company values the
      humanistic goals or certain specific practices of XP. (E.g. the "Overtime
      required" warnings everywhere, the mandatory random drug testing, and so forth.)
      I presume that a lot of the language comes from worries about compliance with
      Federal regulations as a government contractor, but it's still a bit
      off-putting....

      Joshua
    • Thomas Matelich
      ... As far as the overtime goes, that s the way we currently do things. It goes along with our fixed feature set / fixed deadline / fixed teamsize situation.
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Joshua Macy/Towers Perrin wrote:

        > "Jim McFarland" wrote:
        >
        > "tim mackinnon" wrote:
        > >> > We are located in Issaquah, WA outside Seattle. And we'll probably have
        > >> > 6 - 10 job openings within the next 6 months, there is one currently
        > >> > open (http://www.zetec.com/employment/jobs.htm).
        > >>
        > >> You may want to consider these adds - they seem quite XP unfriendly!
        >
        > >"XP unfriendly"? What do you mean? He mentioned openings on his team
        > > at the end of a regular message. What is your objection?
        >
        > I think he means the job postings themselves. If you follow the link to the
        > Zetec site, it doesn't appear at first glance that the company values the
        > humanistic goals or certain specific practices of XP. (E.g. the "Overtime
        > required" warnings everywhere, the mandatory random drug testing, and so forth.)
        > I presume that a lot of the language comes from worries about compliance with
        > Federal regulations as a government contractor, but it's still a bit
        > off-putting....
        >
        > Joshua

        As far as the overtime goes, that's the way we currently do things. It goes along
        with our fixed feature set / fixed deadline / fixed teamsize situation. This will be
        changing. I hope random drug testing is not an anti-XP practice, because I don't
        think people on drugs write very good tests :) And yes, a lot of it is government
        related. It does give you insight as to why I'm so excited about going XP though.



        --
        Thomas O Matelich
        Senior Software Designer
        Zetec, Inc.
        sosedada@...
        tmatelich@...
      • Herman, Eric K
        ... Will a random drug test help to determine if the tests are well written? Will a random drug test help determine if an team member is working out? I don t
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          > I hope random drug testing is not an anti-XP practice, because I don't
          > think people on drugs write very good tests :)

          Will a random drug test help to determine if the tests are well written?
          Will a random drug test help determine if an team member is working out?

          I don't see the relationship.
        • Thomas Matelich
          ... I see your point, and i don t feel like starting a big drug testing argument here. It s a bit too off topic. I have no control over it, and I have no
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 1, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            "Herman, Eric K" wrote:

            > > I hope random drug testing is not an anti-XP practice, because I don't
            > > think people on drugs write very good tests :)
            >
            > Will a random drug test help to determine if the tests are well written?
            > Will a random drug test help determine if an team member is working out?
            >
            > I don't see the relationship.

            I see your point, and i don't feel like starting a big drug testing argument here.
            It's a bit too off topic. I have no control over it, and I have no disagreement with
            the policy.

            --
            Thomas O Matelich
            Senior Software Designer
            Zetec, Inc.
            sosedada@...
            tmatelich@...
          • Tim Mackinnon
            ... the ... forth.) ... with ... Yes - the overtime warnings all over the place are certainly a warning sign, and I just didn t get a strong XP impression from
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 1, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              > I think he means the job postings themselves. If you follow the link to
              the
              > Zetec site, it doesn't appear at first glance that the company values the
              > humanistic goals or certain specific practices of XP. (E.g. the "Overtime
              > required" warnings everywhere, the mandatory random drug testing, and so
              forth.)
              > I presume that a lot of the language comes from worries about compliance
              with
              > Federal regulations as a government contractor, but it's still a bit
              > off-putting....

              Yes - the overtime warnings all over the place are certainly a warning sign,
              and I just didn't get a strong XP impression from the adds. Of course there
              are regulations that you clearly point out, and I personally don't have a
              problem with that.

              As we are re-thinking our job adds for our company, I thought you might also
              like another opinion.

              Tim
            • Ron Lusk
              ... Well, doesn t XP call for 100% testing? :-)
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 1, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                > From: Herman, Eric K [mailto:EHerman@...]
                >
                > > I hope random drug testing is not an anti-XP practice, because I don't
                > > think people on drugs write very good tests :)
                >
                > Will a random drug test help to determine if the tests are well written?
                > Will a random drug test help determine if an team member is working out?
                >
                > I don't see the relationship.
                >

                Well, doesn't XP call for 100% testing? :-)
              • Zhon Johansen
                ... No, it calls for *just enough* testing. This means test only those who could fail the test (you will have to pick your own politically correct way of
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 1, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ron Lusk wrote:

                  > > From: Herman, Eric K [mailto:EHerman@...]
                  > >
                  > > > I hope random drug testing is not an anti-XP practice, because I don't
                  > > > think people on drugs write very good tests :)
                  > >
                  > > Will a random drug test help to determine if the tests are well written?
                  > > Will a random drug test help determine if an team member is working out?
                  > >
                  > > I don't see the relationship.
                  > >
                  >
                  > Well, doesn't XP call for 100% testing? :-)

                  No, it calls for *just enough* testing. This means test only those who could fail
                  the test (you will have to pick your own politically correct way of deciding *just
                  enough* :-)
                • Trushkin, Vladimir
                  ... No, it calls for *just enough* testing. This means test only those who could fail the test (you will have to pick your own politically correct way of
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 1, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > > From: Herman, Eric K [mailto:EHerman@...]
                    > >
                    > > > I hope random drug testing is not an anti-XP practice, because I don't
                    > > > think people on drugs write very good tests :)
                    > >
                    > > Will a random drug test help to determine if the tests are well written?
                    > > Will a random drug test help determine if an team member is working out?
                    > >
                    > > I don't see the relationship.
                    > >
                    >
                    > Well, doesn't XP call for 100% testing? :-)

                    No, it calls for *just enough* testing. This means test only those who
                    could fail
                    the test (you will have to pick your own politically correct way of deciding
                    *just
                    enough* :-)

                    [Vladimir Trushkin] Well, figuring out what is enough for testing is not a
                    trivial task. There are too many reasons to fail and too many parameters to
                    miss. For insurance the tests should be as thorough as possible under given
                    limitations in time and resources.

                    Best Wishes,
                    Vladimir
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.