Debouncing....at About 1Mhz - Uobtanium Obtained ;-)
in [Design]
|
Prev: TL499A boost converter question
Next: PIC sanity test
From: Jim Thompson on 13 Nov 2007 14:28 On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:59:01 -0800, Charlie Edmondson <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 08:54:14 -0800, Charlie Edmondson >> <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >>>>>On a similiar subject... >>>>> >>>>>A team I was working with was developing a vehicle classifier using an >>>>>overhead laser rangefinder and some other sensors. Their problem was >>>>>that the laser system was not very accurate or precise, it gave the >>>>>range to a vehicle with an 'error' of several inches. The laser system >>>>>had actually been developed just to detect presense, not range, and >>>>>range was just an unsupported feature. >>>>> >>>>>So, the team went to work. Unfortunately, they were of the 'hacker' >>>>>level of software developers - lets write code, and figure out how to do >>>>>things later! So, after about four months, they had working code, but >>>>>it was of the consistency of spaghetti, having had four different >>>>>hackers working on it simultaneously. >>>>> >>>>>So, the project team went to management and said "We now know how to do >>>>>it, and make good determinations. Let us have another month, and we can >>>>>start from scratch and build it right, from the ground up, and you will >>>>>have a system that will be much more stable and dependable. >>>>> >>>>>Management told them to get off their duffs and start on the next >>>>>project, the system worked and that was all they needed, and that they >>>>>were behind schedule anyway. >>>>> >>>>>Then they fired the head of R&D! >>>>> >>>>>I transfered out to the field... >>>>> >>>>>Charlie >>>> >>>> >>>>Engineers should just say "no, it's not good enough, it's not ready, >>>>and we won't release it until it is." >>>> >>>>Really. >>>> >>>>John >>>> >>> >>>Yep, but then management always has the option of then firing the design >>>team, which in this case was a real threat. They instead just fired the >>>manager, and broke up the team. >>> >>>Charlie >> >> >> I have two reactions to that: >> >> 1. If they fired the team, the project would be delayed a lot more >> than if they negotiated a cleanup/release plan that delivered a good >> product. So they probably wouldn't fire them. >> >> 2. If I discovered that my management was such jerks, I'd quit before >> they could fire me. >> >> John >> > >Yeah, but they had the 'product' that they needed to fulfil a contract >requirement, even if it was a piece of cr*p, and that was all they >really cared about. They kept most of the team on, and made one of the >senior folk the new 'manager' (on a very short leash!) for the 9 months >they spent keeping the team on until the contract was ready to finish. >I transfered to the actual project from the R&D team to get back to CA >and out of Omaha, and was laid off a year later (also referred to as my >Year in Hell...) > >Should have quit, but they held this big carrot of bonuses if I stayed >out the project. Then, just before Christmas, they had a special >meeting where they handed out the bonus checks. Imagine my reaction >when at the end of the meeting, I was the only one that didn't get a >check! I should have sued them, but just wanted out so bad that I just >left... > >Charlie Well, Charlie, You know what the final end-of-project meeting is called, "Punishment of the innocent" ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
From: Charlie Edmondson on 13 Nov 2007 18:31 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:59:01 -0800, Charlie Edmondson > <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> >> >>Yeah, but they had the 'product' that they needed to fulfil a contract >>requirement, even if it was a piece of cr*p, and that was all they >>really cared about. They kept most of the team on, and made one of the >>senior folk the new 'manager' (on a very short leash!) for the 9 months >>they spent keeping the team on until the contract was ready to finish. >>I transfered to the actual project from the R&D team to get back to CA >>and out of Omaha, and was laid off a year later (also referred to as my >>Year in Hell...) >> >>Should have quit, but they held this big carrot of bonuses if I stayed >>out the project. Then, just before Christmas, they had a special >>meeting where they handed out the bonus checks. Imagine my reaction >>when at the end of the meeting, I was the only one that didn't get a >>check! I should have sued them, but just wanted out so bad that I just >>left... >> >>Charlie > > > Well, Charlie, You know what the final end-of-project meeting is > called, "Punishment of the innocent" ;-) > > ...Jim Thompson Well, I have to admit that by that time the last thing I felt was 'innocent!' That project had so much afro-engineering that it was amazing that it ran long enough to get through the acceptance trials. Charlie
From: krw on 14 Nov 2007 20:08
In article <eimjj3d1njq0nq8r6tebdc0b17hqi42hr2(a)4ax.com>, jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says... > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 08:54:14 -0800, Charlie Edmondson > <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >>>On a similiar subject... > >>> > >>>A team I was working with was developing a vehicle classifier using an > >>>overhead laser rangefinder and some other sensors. Their problem was > >>>that the laser system was not very accurate or precise, it gave the > >>>range to a vehicle with an 'error' of several inches. The laser system > >>>had actually been developed just to detect presense, not range, and > >>>range was just an unsupported feature. > >>> > >>>So, the team went to work. Unfortunately, they were of the 'hacker' > >>>level of software developers - lets write code, and figure out how to do > >>>things later! So, after about four months, they had working code, but > >>>it was of the consistency of spaghetti, having had four different > >>>hackers working on it simultaneously. > >>> > >>>So, the project team went to management and said "We now know how to do > >>>it, and make good determinations. Let us have another month, and we can > >>>start from scratch and build it right, from the ground up, and you will > >>>have a system that will be much more stable and dependable. > >>> > >>>Management told them to get off their duffs and start on the next > >>>project, the system worked and that was all they needed, and that they > >>>were behind schedule anyway. > >>> > >>>Then they fired the head of R&D! > >>> > >>>I transfered out to the field... > >>> > >>>Charlie > >> > >> > >> Engineers should just say "no, it's not good enough, it's not ready, > >> and we won't release it until it is." > >> > >> Really. > >> > >> John > >> > >Yep, but then management always has the option of then firing the design > >team, which in this case was a real threat. They instead just fired the > >manager, and broke up the team. > > > >Charlie > > I have two reactions to that: > > 1. If they fired the team, the project would be delayed a lot more > than if they negotiated a cleanup/release plan that delivered a good > product. So they probably wouldn't fire them. True, though they don't have to keep the team around for the next disaster. > 2. If I discovered that my management was such jerks, I'd quit before > they could fire me. 3. They can't make your life miserable once they fire you. Amazingly, some think they need the job and boss they're chained to. I suppose some do. -- Keith |