I opened YouTube music app, for which I pay premium and tried to find the podcasts I listen to. I wasn't able to find any filter for podcasts and neither did search yield the podcasts I listen to via Google Podcasts. FFS Google.
At my company, specifically in my team we do on call, and:
1 - it's one week length
2 - it's paid extra
3 - it's optional, but you're a bit of a bad mate if you don't participate
4 - we try to have at least 6 people on rotation to ensure a full month between on call
Because we do several changes to production per day, our coverage is around > 99% for all our services and libraries (my team is responsible for about 30 of them). We have near zero live incidents, and whenever it does happen the phone rings, it ends up being just some unpredictable spike in load that self heals without intervention.
Because on call is not painful (as it shouldn't be!) and we support each other no one has any problem being on call.
While what your company is doing is commendable (most don't pay extra or rotate in that fashion) #3 is a red flag for me because it sounds like the overly friendly but in the end passive aggressive and unprofessional atmosphere I've witnessed at startups and midsize companies who pretend they're startups. If on call is optional what's with the social penalty for people not wanting to do it.
IMO what companies should be doing is paying extra per hour until they get people that want to do it. As in, increase the price they pay "extra" until someone decides to give up their free time outside of normal development hours.
I agree on the preference that if it's not really optional, just don't make it optional.
On-call also varies a ton between companies. I was technically on-call all of the time in my last job, but it was a low throughput system. I had to be up at odd hours maybe once every 2-3 months. I slept pretty well. If you offered me free meals for the week, I wouldn't mind taking my turn on the watch regularly.
This job, I'm on call maybe one week every two months on a high throughput system, and even though it's only half of the day (we have an overseas team to take the night shift), it's generally acknowledged in the team that your sleep takes a hit and you get no real work done that week. If this were an optional part of my job, you'd have to pay me double for the week (basically a 10% raise).
evidently the pay must be adjusted to how painful the on call experience is.
as I said it is optional, no harm comes to you for not participating, and we have people with very good reasons for not helping the team support the code they themselves built and deployed themselves to production.
> 3 - it's optional, but you're a bit of a bad mate if you don't participate
This seems to clearly state that you have a negative opinion of you for turning down extra work that is clearly undesirable. I assume that you're not the only one on your team that feels this way either, that's what I meant by social penalty.
Depending on who you ask it may not be a penalty but that would mean everyone on the team has to think this way. I personally don't think people should be considered a bad mate if they don't want to do an optional thing -- what if they value their time more than the pay+extra that's being offered?
I don't know if you've noticed, but time is the one thing you can never get back. Once you make a certain amount of money, you can live very comfortably -- priorities shift to things that you can't just buy, time is basically the most lucrative and rare yet abundant resource there is.
team effort is a thing, and we want everyone to pull their own weight. In my team we work at most 40h week and on call alerts are rare events, we work to keep it that way and we need solid team spirit to do that.
There are other companies to work at, and we make our expectations clear before the person is hired in relation to on call.
I think we don't have the same definition of optional -- like someone else has noted, maybe the better word was "flexible". The way you're using it is the super manipulative "yeah it's optional, but why would you want the rest of your team to suffer?". Does that not sound manipulative to you?
As far as your impact-on-peers argument -- you could "optionally" also stay 5 hours after when you normally go home to help reduce workload for your peers and help them, do you do that? No? What about 4 hours? what about 3? 2? Where is it fair to stop? The rest of the adult world calls this professionalism, and you stop at what's required of you as your job duty, put forth in your employment contract. In the course of fulfilling that duty you're expected to be reasonably courteous, not to subscribe to some weird hostage situation where the rest of your team suffers if you don't do something that was marked as optional.
You seem to be assuming there is a lot of peer pressure placed on you if you don’t want to do it.
Why?
I’m simply saying there are always social costs. For example you probably won’t be listened to as much when there are conversations around improving system stability.
It’s like our after work Friday drinks are entirely optional - but lots of people build friendships and trust there and this can often lead to higher productivity.
If you can build these friendships another way or have a different path to an equivalently high productivity then not going doesn’t have an impact on you.
> For example you probably won’t be listened to as much when there are conversations around improving system stability.
That sounds like not listening to people about things they might be good at and know something about, because you want to punish them for something completely unrelated. Namely, punish them for not participating in "optional" activities. All the while you don't want to openly and transparently say what you expect from people.
Yes, it is manipulative and it is bad workplace.
> It’s like our after work Friday drinks are entirely optional - but lots of people build friendships and trust there and this can often lead to higher productivity.
It sounds sounds like nepotism where your ability to function and be promoted rests on your ability to make friends and be charming around beer.
No a meritocracy, but rather badly managed workplace.
-----------------
Seriously, you openly say that you would listen and judge system stability suggestions based on participation in supposedly optional activity unrelated to system stability. You also openly say that you trust people work based on Friday beer instead on how they act when working.
That sounds like horrible workplace for anyone who care about work and great workplace for charming bullshitters.
In all seriousness, you sound a little antisocial. I see where you’re coming from and I sympathize, but the environment described by the poster you’re replying to sounds very mildly manipulative at worst. I’m not sure you understand that the whole “bad mate” thing likely comes from his peers, not from management. Human beings are social animals, and you’ll be better off if you adapt to that reality rather than rail against it.
I think that I am simply working in better place. The one where people can but does not have to socialize at Fridays and the one where if they want you to do something, they say it.
That means that fathers don't have to drinking Friday evening and can be with their families. It means that parents who pick up kids after work are not disadvantaged by it. It means primary caregivers (women) have smaller hit on their career then they would otherwise. It means that people can so sport on Fridays, abstinents do well, anyone can use Friday evening to travel.
It is not merely mildly manipulative. It is literally bad office politics framed as "being social". Peers being passive aggressive is no different from management being manipulative or passive aggressive.
Lastly, it also means that I can make open transparent agreements about my work and preferences and salary compensation. Because in your setup, such things are not talked about openly and conflicts are not solved directly.
I guess it is best for whom? It is certainly fun to be part of such clique and everyone who has real responsibilities or relationships outside the office or who want to directly openly discuss workload will leave after a while having no choice.
As in, they are fun places if you single, but if you don't want to offload all children or sick relatives care to partner, you will be punished for drinking with buddies less. Your actual in-the-workplace behavior and output will be irrelevant.
They are fun places because of ping pong table and x-box console, but you wont be able to make explicit agreements about your workload and nature of work.
it is optional, e.g if you have extra work activities that impede you, family reasons etc. and in these cases it's A-OK! Where it's not so OK it's when there's no reason other than not wanting to do just because you just don't want to be bothered.
This is a problem, because during the interviews the person was repeatedly told we did on call and he/she's ok with it.
For us, as a team, it's important because if you have the right to deploy to live whenever you want (after code review evidently), you have the obligation to keep it. When everyone shares the load, the load is lighter for everyone. And my experience tells me it just makes everyone much much more responsible and professional.
If the interview makes sure that potential employees are okay with being on call, then there are no problems.
However, my employer has moral agency above me only insofar as I'm not committing a crime against them (ie fraud or embezzling company funds, etc). This does not include me not performing duties I'm paid for. If I don't do my work, then they don't pay me. This is a civil matter. This certainly doesn't include the reason why I'm deciding not to do optional work. My employer doesn't get to decide that I'm somehow a bad person because they don't agree with why I'm not doing extra non-required work.
Eventually, I'm going to be a corpse in the ground. I'm not missing out on my other life goals because you weren't satisfied with my priorities and it turns out that the money you were offering didn't help me accomplish what I want to accomplish.
But do you keep track of how many people might not join because of the on-call? Or have exit interviews that check whether being on-call was a contributing factor?
If people don't join because of that, then I'd say that's a filter and I'm ok with that. In the Lisbon office of the company I work, on call was not a contributing factor for the people who have left. The vast majority was because they wanted to work in a different country, and not a problem with the company per se.
I think you should try to tune out the self healing spikes from your alerts as Alarm Fatigue is real and your mind gets programmed to treat it as yet another spike and either not taking it seriously or assuming that 'adding more resources' is going to be the solution instead of properly diagnosing the problem.
True in regards to Skype, although that was an acquisition that was done under Balmer's and not Satya Nadella. In regards to LinkedIn I don't see what exactly you think has went/is wrong with LinkedIn from a product perspective since it has been acquired. There's no assurance had it not been acquired that it would have the features your advisees are claiming it should have. It is still the undisputed leader in its market.
Well... the thing is those guys really only approach foreigners. I am sorry for your experience, but as a nearly 30y old Portuguese who lives and works in Lisbon, I had that only happen to me once, and it was while speaking in English with a visiting friend.
That makes no sense. We're not talking about a commodity that's for sale and thus, loses its market value as the market becomes saturated by Chinese knock-offs and look-a-likes. It's more than just a show for the mindless consumption of viewers on social media. Primitive Technology videos came from his own personal interest and love for the art of craftsmanship itself, thus, his videos have not lost any of their value, as his motives and drive were never commercial to begin with.
It's your option to eat fast-food, but in no way does that devaluate high end cuisine.
Surely you mean western shores of Portugal, or the Iberian Peninsula? Portugal was founded in 1139, Spain as a single entity, and not a collection of Kingdoms was founded in 1469, 200 and so years after Genghis Khan (1162-1227).
IIRC, “Spain”, like “Germany”, was a geographic name long before it identified a particular polity.
In any case it's a geographic name coextensive with a modern polity now, and a modern speaker using it to identify a geographic location even for events that predate the modern polity is normal and clear.
Hispania != Spain. In any case, the westernmost region on the Iberian peninsula was and still is occupied by a country then known and still known as Portugal.
I have no idea in VSCode, but with JetBrains Gogland, debugging tests is stupidly easy. Simply add the breakpoint where you want it, left click on the play button in the line of the test declaration, click debug in the contextual menu, and off you go.
