Martin Tithonium (tithonium) wrote,
Martin Tithonium

  • Mood:


That wasn't the most unpleasant meeting I've ever been in. But I'm not sure we actually got anywhere. We discussed the team issues, lack of resources, need for SE support, the fact that nobody really signed on to be a deployment engineer, the feeling that we've become the bucket for the unwanted legacy features...

They recognize the need for deployment support, and are working on that. A team has agreed to put resources of that type towards our needs. We aren't the only people with legacy crap to deal with, perhaps not even the worst. These are the rebuttals, by the way.

We don't have enough internally-initiated innovation, the core of what a two-pizza-team should be.

For the division planning meetings this year, michael had to write up everything and submit them. Next year, he wants werner to write them up, and werner wants the team to contribute, we'll have meetings to figure out where we should allocate our resources. The team will get its input. Nevermind that michael didn't inquire with the engineers directly about this year's goals. Why are we doing things that come from above, like GiftyThingy? We need to do inline gifting, it's one of the things we are resourced for from the planning meetings. The GiftyThingy is just an idea, if we have a better one, do that instead.

We need a realistic plan for eliminating our operational burden. We think we have one. It's taken 6 months of engineers calling for it, ignoring the fact that we've been calling for it as a department for years, to get here.

Schedules and deadlines should be driven by projects, features, and resources, NOT the other way around. Some projects, there's no choice. Other projects, they are, you just need to push back appropriately. We can't /not/ set deadlines, or nothing would get done.

We discussed how we don't feel the engineers' input on planning and decision making is really listened to, and how this is one of the things that makes me feel undervalued. Didn't really get much from that.

After all of this, we finally transitioned to what it'll take to keep me. I don't know. They seem to feel that they've addressed all of the issues I've brought up. Those that they can't really change are company-wide, so moving groups won't help any. We got to the topic of money. After a few jokes involving large numbers, michael asked what amount I thought would be fair. I can't really say that I don't think my pay is /fair/, is the problem. At the time at least, I felt that I was fairly well paid for a web dev. Those others whose salaries I know are paid notably less than I. It's been pointed out since then that I don't know the pay rate for any other webdev 3s, and that, from what they knew, I was at the low end. My problem with the pay isn't so much the number itself, but the way it's changed.. I'm still - it turns out - angry about the cut last year. My take-home is still less than it was two years ago. Michael reiterated that he's working on making an adjustment but that it will take some time.

So, where are we? I closed with something to the effect of "Let us assume, for now, that my decision to leave is unchanged, but I will think about this". Which I shall do.

What are your thoughts?
Tags: amazon, angst, bitchiness, jobs
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded