|
metztli posted:So I could use some advice. This sounds like a really lovely setup, honestly, and it's down almost entirely to the contractor rotation problem. You really need to have some stability in the development team, not just because of general skill but also because of familiarity with the domain the devs are working in, and familiarity with the devs themselves. If you can solve the rotation issue, then you're at least just left with the more general "working with offshore contractors sucks" issue, but that at least plenty of people have experience with. Do you know specifically if the contracting agency is rotating the more-skilled devs out, or could it be that they're leaving of their own accord to go for higher-paying jobs? The former is an issue you could potentially fix by finding a new contracting agency, the latter would be trickier to deal with. Either way, I wouldn't take the job of overseeing a team that I constantly have to be teaching basic good development practices to. That sounds like a Sisyphean task to me, no fun at all. Plus it'd be somewhat isolating from the rest of the company since you wouldn't have any local responsibilities. Have the TLs talked to management about these issues? What's management's attitude been about it?
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
metztli posted:Among management, the thing being suggested is we change the current system and have one of our team leads handle all of the offshore teams and no in-house team, as maybe then that person would be able to see ways to improve performance since they have a more comprehensive view and might be able to more efficiently handle problems that come up. The cons of this are that the offshore teams will still rotate talent, the lead will likely wind up in a position where they don't care about the people they're supposed to be leading as a result, and in general it seems weird to devote resources to helping another company get better employees which we will not get to benefit from. That position is a goat. In time, whoever leads the offshore "team" will come to be blamed for its inefficiencies and failures, which they can't control because they stem from another company taking advantage of yours. All of the negative feelings about that will attach themselves to the internal manager who's overseeing it. I'd avoid it like the plague.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
metztli posted:So I could use some advice. I am basically in something like both positions you describe. We hire students year round to work on UI and other tasks. I've sort of ended up in the spot of mentoring them and trying to keep them moving somewhat in the same direction. It can be a chore to start over every few months, but you basically have that chore now, and if you plan for it, it can be mitigated. I've prepared a number of materials/exercises for when they start to hopefully get them being marginally productive, and then they learn as they contribute to projects. Most of them are what you'd expect from students, but sometimes we find some really good ones and most of our new hires come from this pool, as it's an excellent interviewing tool. I would definitely lean towards your "hire students" idea instead of "one person to manage the offshore devs", as the latter option just turns you into a dedicated tutor for their consulting company. You'll hate it, them, and your company and end up quitting because you'll have no real ability to fix things and ALL the responsibility. fantastic in plastic posted:I'd avoid it like the plague. Exactly. At least with the student angle, you have more control, you might actually find some really good developers that stay on full-time, and might just find leading them somewhat fulfilling. Don't hire too many to start though, you won't know WTF to do with them, they will need hand-holding and you'll spend a lot of time thinking of things they can do without being more destructive than helpful. Start with 2-3, see how it goes. Worst case scenario, you get rid of them after a few months.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
At my last company we had a good experience with our offshore team, but it was a stable team with their own QA and team lead. They required a lot of oversight, but they took pride in their work. Eventually they made huge architectural improvements to the codebase. But none of that would have been possible if they constantly rotated out workers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
metztli posted:I'm the team lead for one of these teams, and I'm being considered for the overall offshore lead role. My experience with offshore teams has varied grossly depending upon how close the relationship and trust we had between the teams regardless of role. A consistent leadership theme I've also seen is that we have a trusted team lead among engineers that manages the other team's day-to-day work - worked for India, Romania, Hungary, Spain, etc. The model isn't exactly new either (it was even in that stupid Outsourced TV show). I suspect that this company is trying this old, proven model. It breaks down if the offshore team's budget is so low that you can't even hire decent people for that market. Personally, I'd only take the opportunity if I really wanted to move to that country anyway and consider it a job that I'll already have lined up. Speaking of offshoring, anyone else seeing a strange theme of companies with developers in low-cost countries almost exclusively with sales / management all being stateside? Couple companies I've interviewed with have had all their engineers in some place with terrible unemployment but decent education like Spain or Greece and executives in the states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
lifg posted:At my last company we had a good experience with our offshore team, but it was a stable team with their own QA and team lead. They required a lot of oversight, but they took pride in their work. Eventually they made huge architectural improvements to the codebase. I recommend finding your contractors directly if you have the ability to do that. It's often possible to pull one great developer in who's passively/not looking by offering them US fees for Argentinian cost of living, then leverage their network to find other people to fill your open positions for the local rate. Vulture Culture fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:Speaking of offshoring, anyone else seeing a strange theme of companies with developers in low-cost countries almost exclusively with sales / management all being stateside? Couple companies I've interviewed with have had all their engineers in some place with terrible unemployment but decent education like Spain or Greece and executives in the states. Management is the one making the offshoring decisions, so they won't offshore themselves just like CEOs won't pay themselves less. Sales...well, a nontrivial part of sales is making personal connections, and people are racist/sexist/bigoted so you want to make sure you have sales people that look, act, and sound like their clients as much as possible. Meanwhile engineers are just troglodytes that sit in dark rooms and spit out code! You shouldn't ever have to talk to them, just hand them requirements documents, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Meanwhile engineers are just troglodytes that sit in dark rooms and spit out code! You shouldn't ever have to talk to them, just hand them requirements documents, right? Wow, you guys get requirements documents? Lucky!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
So I spoke with my boss today, who is essentially going to be calling the shots on what we do, and the response was to ask if I felt we have the capacity to try both things. So it looks like we may be enhancing our intern "program" (it's more "oh poo poo, here's an intern, figure out what to do with them" right now) as well as having one person TL all the offshore teams. Weirdly, I'm probably more interested in the offshore TL position than I am in a position running an intern program, mostly because I think it might give me a leg up as our company expands globally. TooMuchAbstraction posted:Do you know specifically if the contracting agency is rotating the more-skilled devs out, or could it be that they're leaving of their own accord to go for higher-paying jobs? The former is an issue you could potentially fix by finding a new contracting agency, the latter would be trickier to deal with. Either way, I wouldn't take the job of overseeing a team that I constantly have to be teaching basic good development practices to. That sounds like a Sisyphean task to me, no fun at all. Plus it'd be somewhat isolating from the rest of the company since you wouldn't have any local responsibilities. As I mentioned, the person who would be calling the shots seems to be interested in trying both approaches, so I take that as a very good sign that there will be flexibility. This is an experiment, not a mandate as I feared. It's a mix of both reasons for offshore devs being rotated out. We've set some basic productivity and quality goals that are at least slightly challenging to hit if they rotate people too quickly or give us all duds, but there isn't a lot of control from our end, currently. In my discussion with my boss, I've been told the "one TL to bind them all" will have more leeway than the individual TLs do currently - what that leeway will look like is anyone's guess - it's all TBD and partly will be based on what the person in that role asks for. The plus side is that this might actually be a bit less isolating because The One TL would have to interact with more local product and project managers than they do currently, and get broader exposure to different groups, albeit not as much interaction with other local developers. The downside, as you point out, is that it's going to be less than ideal to continually teach people better practices and then poof, they're gone. In my previous career (academia), the thing I liked most - by a mile - was getting to mentor interns and grad students and watch them succeed. I don't know how I'll feel if I'm only doing the mentor part without the success, but at least it would give me some more experience that I might be able to leverage as we grow. fantastic in plastic posted:That position is a goat. In time, whoever leads the offshore "team" will come to be blamed for its inefficiencies and failures, which they can't control because they stem from another company taking advantage of yours. All of the negative feelings about that will attach themselves to the internal manager who's overseeing it. Right now, we have multiple people who are having negative feelings about offshore stuff because they have to deal with it when they would rather be leading their local teams. Maybe them not having to do that anymore would get rid of some of the negativity around offshore stuff - taking one for the team and all that. And, if the person in this role could actually increase the quality of the output, maybe that wouldn't be so bad, either. Definitely something to keep in mind, though. I will say, our culture doesn't seem to do too much scapegoating, at least not that I've seen. Recently saw a project go completely sideways due to failures at pretty much every level, and the people responsible at every level stepped up and took responsibility, and did what they could to make it right - very little finger pointing. Skandranon posted:I am basically in something like both positions you describe. We hire students year round to work on UI and other tasks. I've sort of ended up in the spot of mentoring them and trying to keep them moving somewhat in the same direction. It can be a chore to start over every few months, but you basically have that chore now, and if you plan for it, it can be mitigated. I've prepared a number of materials/exercises for when they start to hopefully get them being marginally productive, and then they learn as they contribute to projects. Most of them are what you'd expect from students, but sometimes we find some really good ones and most of our new hires come from this pool, as it's an excellent interviewing tool. I would definitely lean towards your "hire students" idea instead of "one person to manage the offshore devs", as the latter option just turns you into a dedicated tutor for their consulting company. You'll hate it, them, and your company and end up quitting because you'll have no real ability to fix things and ALL the responsibility. I don't mind starting over with students - at least if we get some good ones, they'll still (hopefully) be with the company or come back to the company so there will be the potential for longer term benefit. In your experience, do you think it would be good to bring in, say, 4 or 6 students, assign them in pairs to a team that usually has 1 TL, 1 senior dev, 2 mid level devs and maybe 1 junior dev? That way everyone could kind of share the load of teaching while also getting experience being a mentor themselves. We currently have 8-10 teams (a couple of teams are splitting apart because they're a bit too large), so the overall productivity hit of taking 2 or 3 really solid teams and giving them interns to start with seems like it wouldn't be too bad. As you say, being a tutor to an offshore company definitely has the potential to suck horribly, but it also has the potential to give me exposure and experience with managing offshore teams; our company has acquired a few foreign dev shops, and as we expand globally, I sure wouldn't mind it if my next step up the ladder was to manage several of them. In this case, we don't own our contractor, but I believe some of the experience will be transferrable for when we do expand more. Maybe that's overly optimistic, but based on our culture and what I've seen happen, it doesn't seem like a completely off-base approach to take. necrobobsledder posted:Personally, I'd only take the opportunity if I really wanted to move to that country anyway and consider it a job that I'll already have lined up. This role won't have the person living overseas - they will still be working locally with product and project groups here, and working very closely with the manager of the offshore contractor. There might be some travel in this role, but it will mostly be the manager from there coming here. If this eventually leads to a role as a manager of multiple teams world-wide, there would definitely be travel, which I'm ok with; I used to have to travel at least 1 week a month to various places around the US, and at one point for a year I was spending 3 weeks out of every 4 traveling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
I heard that Facebook has a process where if you think that something you're working on - in your personal time, with your personal equipment - is not relevant to any of their products, you can ask for and be granted the rights to your project. So that even if the super broad "we own everything you create" assignment agreement is something you must agree to, people still commonly get exceptions for individual projects, like video games or something. Does anyone know if that's true?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
I can't speak to Facebook specifically, but it's not uncommon for other tech companies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:I heard that Facebook has a process where if you think that something you're working on - in your personal time, with your personal equipment - is not relevant to any of their products, you can ask for and be granted the rights to your project. So that even if the super broad "we own everything you create" assignment agreement is something you must agree to, people still commonly get exceptions for individual projects, like video games or something. Does anyone know if that's true? At least from what I understand in California, what you do in your own time on your own machine is yours no matter the contract. State laws vary. Now if you're working on a direct competitor to Facebook that might differ entirely. It has happened before and there are lots of thoughts on this. Here's a start: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2208056 (there have been recent articles on arstechnica.com as well)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
metztli posted:Weirdly, I'm probably more interested in the offshore TL position than I am in a position running an intern program, mostly because I think it might give me a leg up as our company expands globally. Really, don't try it unless you are given full control to fire them and hire new contractors. The ones you have now sound like poo poo. Even in the best company culture, you'll basically be the one who has to deal with all their failure. Be very careful taking this on. At least with the students, there is readily understood expectation they will suck. It's harder to accept the contractors just plain suck, because if that's the case, why aren't you firing them? metztli posted:I don't mind starting over with students - at least if we get some good ones, they'll still (hopefully) be with the company or come back to the company so there will be the potential for longer term benefit. If you haven't dealt with students before, I would say to start small. Maybe focus on one team that has some slack and can better spend time ramping them up, and then iterate, slowly growing as you get better at it. There's a lot to learn dealing with them, and I wouldn't say I'm even particularly good at it yet. I'm told I'm doing better than anyone before, but sometimes they can be extremely frustrating, being basically children. They'll need their hands held for some of the most basic things, they will be afraid to ask questions and will go a week on something that you could answer in 5 minutes, etc. You won't even know how to interview them at first. The benefit of students is you can turn them over every few months (depends on the school), and while you are sifting you sometimes find some real gems, and when they are gems, it's not "hmm, well, he DID pass FizzBuzz", you've got months of their work to say "this guy is great! hire him now!". Hiring a bunch of them and sprinkling them around to different teams will probably lead to some very varied results, and will be harder to improve the process in general. It's also important to somewhat keep them together, at least socially. They'll be better able to relate to each other, instead of the scary full time devs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:I heard that Facebook has a process where if you think that something you're working on - in your personal time, with your personal equipment - is not relevant to any of their products, you can ask for and be granted the rights to your project. So that even if the super broad "we own everything you create" assignment agreement is something you must agree to, people still commonly get exceptions for individual projects, like video games or something. Does anyone know if that's true? No idea if it's true, but if it is, no thanks. I'll start out with "I own the rights to everything I do on my own time" and not give any company any help in taking away those rights, no matter how nice they've been in the past about GIVING THEM BACK once they take them. I won't leverage trade secrets or company contact lists into my own directly competing business and poach customers or use company hardware to work on personal projects instead of doing my job. That's the deal. If any company has a problem with me editing an employment agreement to that effect, I can only conclude that they are operating on bad faith and fully plan to try and take advantage of the overly broad wording at some point during my tenure. Don't need to put up with it. Won't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:I heard that Facebook has a process where if you think that something you're working on - in your personal time, with your personal equipment - is not relevant to any of their products, you can ask for and be granted the rights to your project. So that even if the super broad "we own everything you create" assignment agreement is something you must agree to, people still commonly get exceptions for individual projects, like video games or something. Does anyone know if that's true? I forget exactly how it works, but I believe Facebook's policy is essentially GitHub's minus blanket permission; it has to get vetted. Facebook does develop a rather large variety of software internally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:No idea if it's true, but if it is, no thanks. I'll start out with "I own the rights to everything I do on my own time" and not give any company any help in taking away those rights, no matter how nice they've been in the past about GIVING THEM BACK once they take them. I won't leverage trade secrets or company contact lists into my own directly competing business and poach customers or use company hardware to work on personal projects instead of doing my job. That's the deal. This isn't about the company trying to control what you produce, it's just about being open about who's making what using what resources, so that if you go public with your product they don't have to go "wait...did that guy build that with our stuff?" It's seriously just about bringing their legal costs down by making it so they don't start any court cases they aren't likely to win. Or from your perspective, making it so you don't have to deal with getting sued by your employer when you did nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
If there's the implicit threat of frivolous litigation when you work on a project without company approval, that seems effectively the same as the company exerting control over your personal work. I doubt many people would want to get into a drawn-out legal battle with Facebook, even if the company had no case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:If you work on something on your own time, with your personal equipment, without using proprietary information, and doesn't intersect with the company's business, California law demands that the company does not have IP claims to it. For a big company the bolded part isn't always obvious 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
apseudonym posted:For a big company the bolded part isn't always obvious Hence the policy to get it vetted. But that risk is with any big company because that is probably the most easily overlooked aspect of the California law. But I am not a lawyer, etc. gays fashion posted:If there's the implicit threat of frivolous litigation when you work on a project without company approval, that seems effectively the same as the company exerting control over your personal work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:This isn't about the company trying to control what you produce, it's just about being open about who's making what using what resources, so that if you go public with your product they don't have to go "wait...did that guy build that with our stuff?" It's seriously just about bringing their legal costs down by making it so they don't start any court cases they aren't likely to win. Or from your perspective, making it so you don't have to deal with getting sued by your employer when you did nothing wrong. I understand that for most companies this is probably the case and they aren't going into these things intending to gently caress people over with nuisance or frivolous litigation. Unfortunately it doesn't matter to me what they intend, what matters is that they are claiming these advantages at all. Because if the worst case happens, I would then face additional disadvantages (for instance, having to prove that an agreement I signed was not legally enforceable or too broad in scope to be valid). As gays fashion said, the implicit threat is already asserting control over what I do. Finances being what they are, a business already has a MASSIVE advantage over me as an individual in a potential lawsuit even without such language in an employment agreement. I'm not willing to give them more without any consideration in return (for example, if they want the default state to be "we reserve the right to assert copyright over work you do on your own time, and if we assert this right we will pay you <contracting rate> for the hours you spent creating it," that's something I could work with).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
I know of a large tech company that had a 2B unicorn spout from their employee. So they changed the policy to the explicit sign off mentioned above. Not sure how that would help o not but that's where it stands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:Unfortunately it doesn't matter to me what they intend, what matters is that they are claiming these advantages at all. Because if the worst case happens, I would then face additional disadvantages (for instance, having to prove that an agreement I signed was not legally enforceable or too broad in scope to be valid). As gays fashion said, the implicit threat is already asserting control over what I do. However, it's a policy that most companies in this industry have, and they really do have it for their protection. The problem is that if a rogue employee creates a product on company time or with company resources and spins it off as its own thing and it turns out to be a significant revenue generator or competes with the company's own products, the company will have a difficult time proving that it was done on their time or with their resources (assuming it doesn't incorporate existing source code). Even if it was done on own time/resources it may well have benefited from inside knowledge of the company, even if such benefit doesn't involve trade secrets. From the company's perspective it's unusual for someone to put in eight hours a day programming, plus an additional four hours or so programming on a totally unrelated project after hours. Most employees have family or just don't want to "do work" after hours. So it's a clause that doesn't affect most of their employees personally while providing significant protection against rogue actors. Conversely, if you are a regular participant in external (say, open source) projects, most employment contracts I've seen have a space for you to list existing works that you contribute to, so you can make it clear that you work on specific projects after hours and they're not company IP. If you can get away with striking out that clause on your employment contract (along with onerous non-competes and other "not for your benefit" clauses) then more power to you. However, it's a common enough clause, and there's enough potential employees who don't care or who will tolerate it, that the company may say tough. ExcessBLarg! fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm well aware that it might limit my options. So far the companies I've worked for had their ownership clauses be scoped narrowly enough ("ours on company time or using company resources") that I haven't had to die on that particular hill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:Yeah, I'm well aware that it might limit my options. So far the companies I've worked for had their ownership clauses be scoped narrowly enough ("ours on company time or using company resources") that I haven't had to die on that particular hill. If you want to argue what makes you safer, a company open to signing off on personal projects with an established process is covering your butt by doing so, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:I mean, if you're not in California, that might be a meaningful thing, but if you're in California, you're closing doors for no material difference in your ability to be sued. You may not be dying on a hill, but you're certainly making an imaginary distinction. Lol if your company has a process for this. Mine has "requires manager and VP approval" which was really simple, but then it took HR and contracts forever to get through paperwork because they never have to actually deal with it. They started by giving me the invention declaration form that explicitly affirms assignment to the company. Always read everything before you sign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
leper khan posted:
I have a list of two dozen or so code names and vague descriptions for that... Cowboy a network protocol Buffalo a framework Zeta a game engine Etc...
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
leper khan posted:Lol if your company has a process for this. Mine has "requires manager and VP approval" which was really simple, but then it took HR and contracts forever to get through paperwork because they never have to actually deal with it.  if they dragged their feet regularly then everyone would know. The company isn't some boogeyman keen on squeezing every last bit of creativity from its employees and taking ownership of that. It's pretty responsive to complaints. I actually like our Legal and HR teams, which I know is atypical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:I mean, if you're not in California, that might be a meaningful thing, but if you're in California, you're closing doors for no material difference in your ability to be sued. You may not be dying on a hill, but you're certainly making an imaginary distinction. Yeah, I'm not in Cali so it is meaningful. Again though I haven't actually run into the situation so right now it's just a hypothetical; I may well relax my standards for the right company, but I've been lied to by everyone I've worked for so far so I'm not inclined to trust "just ask us and we'll be reasonable, pinky swear."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Oh, not California. Fair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Anyone working in Detroit care to share what they're making / market rate? Tech company with an office there contacted me. I'm a little interested. Mainly for the outdoors and cheap cost of living for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
A bit of background: I've been working part-time for the last 2 years for a little startup (2 people, one full blown business-suit who is the CEO and one scientist/developer). The projects were interesting and I enjoyed the additional income. Through the work of the CEO they have received some funding recently (few mil $). Therefore they have asked me (informally, nothing written yet) to join them full-time. Question: I would like to join them since i don't particularly like my day job anyway. I do expect that I will receive some stock options, and I do expect that the salary they'll offer will be competitive. But ... should I ask to be made co-founder? If yes, how? What does co-founder even mean, actually? Just a title, with a bit of stake in the company or is it more than that? I remember reading a long time ago an article titled "Better to be the last co-founder than the first employee". How could/should I go about it? Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
You're not a co-founder. I mean, you can ask a stupid question about it, but you didn't risk your livelihood on the venture, you're joining _after_ the first major fundraising, you're squarely in the "first employee" bucket. It's neat that you've done some contract work trading your time and expertise for money (not equity?), but having pretensions of co-founderhood are really out there. The first hiring round of a startup tends to be 15-20% of equity. As One Person on that team you should be getting whole percentage points, but anything north of 8% would be unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:You're not a co-founder. I wouldn't expect a co-founder title either. Some equity isn't out of the question. Read Slicing Pie and see how much your situation fits these scenarios. It might give you some idea of what to expect / how to pursue those questions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Volguus posted:A bit of background: Once a company has raised a few million it's very much been "founded" and asking to be made a co-founder at that point is an insult.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Volguus posted:I do expect that I will receive some stock options, and I do expect that the salary they'll offer will be competitive. Volguus posted:But ... should I ask to be made co-founder? Volguus posted:What does co-founder even mean, actually? Volguus posted:I remember reading a long time ago an article titled "Better to be the last co-founder than the first employee". How could/should I go about it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
How do I list a project on my resume if it never actually got released? I had a fairly large application I built using all of my key development skills that got the axe while it was nearly complete. The axe was unrelated to the application itself and was a result of a massive reorganization. It really is unfortunate considering it was maybe a third of the total work I've put in at my current job and I was pretty proud of how it was turning out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:How do I list a project on my resume if it never actually got released? I had a fairly large application I built using all of my key development skills that got the axe while it was nearly complete. The axe was unrelated to the application itself and was a result of a massive reorganization. It really is unfortunate considering it was maybe a third of the total work I've put in at my current job and I was pretty proud of how it was turning out. I'd say just list it as if it were a project that had gone to production. Even without it actually going in front of users you still clearly had to use all your skill you formulate, design, and build the drat thing. Then if you end up getting asked about how it performed in production or anything related to that, you can say that it got canned during a reorg and never actually went live, and parlay it into a discussion about your deployment plan (or what you were planning to do) once it went live. Like what sort of tests you had performmed to be confident in it's performance in a production environment or some other things about what you were going to do to ensure that it's debut would have been successful. Or failing that, about what skills/things you learned in the process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Greatbacon posted:I'd say just list it as if it were a project that had gone to production. Even without it actually going in front of users you still clearly had to use all your skill you formulate, design, and build the drat thing. Yep, List it. You did the work, you have the knowledge of what went on. Regardless of if your prior company released it is moot. It could easily have been an internal project that would never be known by the outside world, etc. Just be able to speak competently about it. What was the goal? What did you learn during implementation? What were your significant contributions? What would you have done differently? Were you a lead on the project, etc.?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Volguus posted:A bit of background: You're not a cofounder, you've been taking their money for 2 years when they didn't have money. It's better to be the last co-founder than the first employee in the same way its better to win the lottery than to not win the lottery. You should put that from your mind, and instead seek competitive salary + competitive equity. That can mean lots of things, but with a few million in the bank it probably means 90-100% of a 'normal' salary, and 0.5-5% equity. It's a big range, but it all depends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
VOTE YES ON 69 posted:You're not a cofounder, you've been taking their money for 2 years when they didn't have money. It's better to be the last co-founder than the first employee in the same way its better to win the lottery than to not win the lottery. Thanks for opening my eyes (you and everyone before), as indeed you are right, i am not a founder and I did not take any risks so far. I guess I was just too greedy. I'll just look towards getting some employee-level stake in the company, even if ultimately it may be just a puff of smoke. How is equity at this level usually handed down? Stock options with a vesting period? Without a vesting period? Other than the company shutting down, what other ways are for the employees to be left with nothing? While I do know the other co-founder (the scientist/developer guy) I never had any personal interaction with the business-suit CEO (who initially invested his own money, he's relatively rich), but money do crazy things to people. Ultimately I am wondering in how many ways can I get hosed? That is, the company getting relatively successful (maybe even bought by a big shark) and me still getting jack-poo poo in the end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 19:51
|
|