[TAG] (forw) Re: Someone needs help in SF
bferrell at baywinds.org
Wed Nov 2 09:49:57 MSK 2005
I mailed you privately. You just showed beyond a shadow of a doubt
you're a ******** in at least these two ways:
1.) I gave you NO permission to place what I sent you privately on a
public list. --A breach of mailing etiqutte for as long as we've both
been around... And I may have been around for longer than you have...
I'm not sure.
2.) By not placing my entire response to you on the public list thereby
placing showing your willingness to place only what you wanted presented
As far as I'm concerned, you've cemented my initial appraisal of you...
Your technical skills are god-like. As a person,
employee/consultant/contractor; You can't be relied on or trusted in any
meaningful way... You only want easy jobs where you're sure to succeed.
Yes, it's possible you could have mucked it up beyond all repair. Or
you could have found it to be a simple fix in spite of a lack of 100%
familierity on your part... But you didn't explain the potential risks
to the client and allow him to make the call. Nor did you consult with
the firms head so he could make a decision and/or consult with the
client. You made a unilateral decision.
Or maybe you did do those things and failed to mention it. As you failed
to mention other things. If you don't present all the particulars, what
conclusions can people reach?
Not too long ago, I walked onto a job site where, very much like the
case you cited, no backups had been done in a very long time and the
systems had "melted" down. I literally spent 3 months extracting the
data and recreating the systems. Yes, it cost them a bundle, but they
(management) knew up front what the risks were and allowed to make a
call on it... It was their prerogative, not mine. That's been my only
If I didn't say it before, I'm saying it now... In spite of your obvious
knowlege and abilities, there is no way in the world you'd touch a
system in a business I'm associated with because I would not be able to
rely 100% that you wouldn't get cold feet and walk away at a critical
time. Sorry Rick, but amateur hour is when you only do the ones you know
up front. A professional knows when to tell the client "I don't know,
but if you're willing to risk it, I'll try... But there IS a risk."
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those making mistakes and
learning. And those doing nothing.
Since you don't tolerate mistakes; need I say more?
Too bad too, you obviously have abilities.
Rick Moen wrote:
> [Redirected back on-list.]
> Quoting Bruce Ferrell (bferrell at baywinds.org):
>>The head of the firm was right... You showed you're unreliable....
> My view: The firm showed _it_ was unreliable.
> The firm's principal sent me out based on a misrepresented account of
> the situation (which I did not detail in my post), which, if he'd
> bothered to inquire about it and brief me, would have let me explain
> why I was absolutely the wrong guy to send. And further, that sending
> me would be much worse than sending nobody -- for all parties concerned.
> If I'd logged into that system, not having any meaningful knowledge of
> XENIX nor of the system configuraiton nor of the vertical application
> nor of the hardware, there's an extremely good chance I'd have wrecked
> things further -- or been perceived as doing so -- on a system said to
> have had no functional backups for a long time. My apologising and
> leaving was the very best thing I could have done to reduce the damage
> to a customer-relations one, instead of one that risked tears,
> bankruptcy, and lawsuits.
> I have a professional reputation to maintain, and it wouldn't be helped
> by blundering around in a completely foreign and possibly fragile system
> wielding superuser authority. The consulting firm also had a reputation
> to maintain, and it wouldn't be well served by that, either. And,
> remember: This way, the latter firm retained the option of finding and
> sending someone else.
>>The one thing I would argue here is that you took the decision away
>>from the person to whom it belonged... The customer.
> Not a bit of that. To the contrary, I _preserved_ his ability to carry
> out that decision -- with someone else, who unlike me would be suitable.
> What I did, unavoidably, was cost him irritation and a fruitless
> two-hour wait. For that, I gladly apologised, and then got out of his
>>But you didn't explain your reasoning to the guy.
> For whatever it matters, I did. Not in detail, as that was the
> consulting firm's prerogative, if they so chose. Remember, this was not
> my customer. I was an independent subcontractor.
>>The bastard operator from hell is a fun image...
> The BOfH would be the guy who logged in, clobbered the data out of
> ignorance, and said "Too bad. You should have had backups." And I was
> very much _not_ of the Tribe of Travaglia, that day.
>>Maybe you had a bad day.
> Maybe you shouldn't make those kinds of decision, since your decision
> criteria seem utterly disasterous to me. But whatever works for you.
>>In anycase, I guess the reason I'm writing this to you is to ask that
>>you not put this out as an acceptable practice.
> The reason I'm replying publicly is to stress that I absolutely do.
> You've asked a question of The Answer Gang, so you've been sent the reply
> directly as a courtesy. The TAG list has also been copied. Please send
> all replies to tag at lists.linuxgazette.net, so that we can help our other
> readers by publishing the exchange in our monthly Web magazine:
> Linux Gazette (http://linuxgazette.net/)
> TAG mailing list
> TAG at lists.linuxgazette.net
More information about the TAG