On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 06:27:48PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > However, when the structure becomes larger than a partnership of > equals with no employees, HR inevitably becomes institutionalized. > That is what you object to, I suppose, but you seem unaware that there > is no existing alternative, not that can support the kind of lifestyle > you aspire to (== writing the software you think is valuable as you > believe you should, rather than according to others' requirements and > specifications) and a modicum of freedom too, and you (and Andrew[1]) > offer none.
> [1] When I wrote "Andrew may be shucking us" I meant that I suspect > that he's aware of this, but though he finds it extremely distasteful, > doesn't plan to do anything about it Not inaccurate as far as it goes, but it's because I can't even qualify the problem accurately (I could make some guesses, but they'd probably be fiction), let alone imagine any solutions. About the only thing I can presently observe is that the outcome is suboptimal and therefore some kind of problem must exist - I can reason backwards from that to a point, but not as far as specifying the problem. The problem may or may not be solvable, but I know when I'm out of my depth, so I'm not going to tackle it. Instead I avoid needing a solution. I have a day job, where I don't have to get involved in that sort of thing - it happens, and it sucks, but at least other people do it. Actually, a guy I work with once said something along the lines of "developers/contractors should not talk to customers: it wastes their time and annoys the customer". The principle probably applies here as well. Having successfully SEPed it, my interest is little more than academic. -- Andrew Suffield
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
