On my team, the PR author is ultimately responsible for their work. All review comments are considered suggestions. The Approve button is used only to indicate completion of the review. If a reviewer has a problem with the merged work, they can open a new case describing the problem.
We train all developers to have sufficient competency to work on any part of the code. If some code is too complex for a developer to understand, it is simplified. Documentation is prioritized and included as part of the work effort.
We have worked together this way for about 7 years, with high developer satisfaction and low turnover. The quality of the product has steadily improved during that time.
What's the point of reviews if author can unconditionally merge the PR without addressing the comments?
I'd feel very low to none incentive to spend time first understanding the problem and then reviewing the solution to the problem if I knew that my opinion can be disregarded just like that. Seems like a waste of time from reviewer POV.
I’m not sure about the bounty idea, but I’ll tell you what does work if you want your favorite undiscovered band to play a show in your town: offer to book and promote the show for them, especially if they’re already planning a tour in the area. I’ve done that multiple times and it worked out quite well. (Of course, that’s only a good idea if you know what you’re doing.)
I played in some local bands for fun years ago and went on some self-funded tours. I also booked and promoted shows (mostly for my own bands). The way that we got most of our gigs was through networking with other bands, bookers, promoters, etc. After we got to be well-known, bands from out of town contacted us for help with local gigs, and we’d book it with a friendly local venue and promote it ourselves. It was a lot of effort, but it was a really good time.
There are an endless number of bands like that. They don’t need a bounty, they are going to go on tours regardless. What they do need is a good local band that they can open for and a good venue to play at. After a few tours to the same cities, maybe they can headline.
Booking a tour is a royal pain. Every venue has a different contact system and different requirements for how to get booked, and you have to book it 6 months to a year in advance. If you don’t play your cards just right, you do not get booked— or worse, you get booked with a band that doesn’t show up and without promotion. Honestly, the best shows are house parties anyways.
Hey thanks for the feedback! I've been in this boat as well as a touring performer myself.
Bands may book tours regardless of the "bounty", but you could apply this same method on top of using RoadPony. Only now, you would have a better idea of how many people you and the local band you booked could bring out and if those people are interested enough in seeing you, they'll place that bounty, which you will collect.
Now that you've applied your method using RoadPony as a tool, you know you'll be getting this revenue and about how many fans will show up before you even book the show.
If RoadPony can find a niche in the crowdfunding market, I think it could work. Give bands some benefits or features that existing crowdfunding platforms don’t, and they’ll use it.
I’m not sure that party affiliation has anything to do with the level of corruption. I would imagine that corruption tracks far more closely to regional GDP - more money, more backroom deals.
I agree that more money probably means more backroom deals. This seems simple to me: One party wants to regulate, the other de-regulate. Which of those platforms attracts the most money?
> Deregulate consumer rights and now anyone can scam you and sell you something that doesn't work with no right to a refund.
Is the right to refund really regulated? Or it's that exact case where competition and market forces do work for the mutual benefit of seller and consumer?
Yes, and my guess is that there is more money to be made off of deregulation than on regulation. Thus, more corruption related to the party that wants to deregulate.
Really? Look at Tammany Hall in NYC and Chicago. And the planning commission in SF. All massive Bureaucracies where nothing could be done unless money greased the wheels.
Why are you sure of it? Regulation often gives more backroom deal type of corruption and monopolies, deregulation on the other hand can give more anarchy. I don't think simple view of having one, regulation or deregulation, and itsa good thing is very intelligent thought.
In the states that I have lived, the voter information pamphlet lists who supports and opposes every initiative. Every time that a new regulation on the ballot would benefit the public at the expense of business, it’s always the same: on one side are Republicans and some multi-national corporations, the other side are Democrats and public-interest groups (environmentalists, etc).
I don’t think that public-interest groups have as much money for backroom deals as multi-national corporations. So that’s why I’m pretty sure of it.
I’d bet that the dollar amounts involved where appointed officials corruptly use regulation to solicit bribes in the U.S. is orders of magnitude smaller than the amounts involved in “campaign donations” to elected officials to prevent and remove regulations.
The amount in question in that article is $5,000.
For comparison, the amount in question here is $34,000:
Would regulation with transparency be the best of both? Because it seems tax law changes so often and violating it so trivial I doubt it'd be better.
IMO those in charge should be forced to drink/breath from whichever area tested most polluted on a regular basis, and as a public event. Once they can no longer hide or pass on the consequences they should take the problems more seriously.
Regulation raises the barrier of entry for startups. Fewer startups means less competition. Less competition means less incentive for the incumbents to do "the right thing" in any field, be that hiring, ecological impact, consumer rights and so on.
When it comes to the economy, we should legislate and tax externalities. For everything else regulation is uniformly bad.
OK, fine. Let's remove all forms of regulation, shall we?
Someone joins your company and starts leaking all your intellectual property. It is all good, though, because legislation related to that doesn't exist.
A developer joins your company, and shortly after uploads your entire code base to github. That's OK due to lack of legislation saying otherwise.
A sysadmin changes all the passwords and asks you for a ransom to unlock your production database. That's also OK.
Your ISP randomly makes your internet 99% slower and then asks you for an exorbitant amount of money. That's also OK.
The accountant forged your signature and stole all the money. That's also OK.
Your customers randomly decide to not pay you. That's also OK.
Your employees start dismantling the office and taking furniture and equipment home. That's OK.
The mailman shows up wearing the company swag you ordered. Doesn't matter anymore.
HR people upload a spreadsheet with everyone's personal information and salaries to the Internet. That's OK.
Some larger company sends some gangsters to force you to sell the company for a fraction of its price. That's OK.
As you can see, saying "regulation is bad" is nonsensical. Without certain guarantees, businesses cannot exist.
I believe you are confused. Nobody is disputing the rule of law (and especially contract law) and the role of government in upholding it. What you are describing is pretty much anarchy and nobody is arguing for that.
I think the distinction between rule of law and regulation is fuzzy. Different people will draw the line in different places, with a heavy bias towards the current system for any given jurisdiction. (Devil you know.)
As a thought experiment: How would you solve those problems with your hands tied behind your back (i.e. you don't have a government to rely on)? Just try one - assume you're in a fictional universe and writing a novel or something.
Anywho, the problem with this trail of discussion is that you can come up with an infinite amount of "problems" and libertarians can likewise come up with a "solution" to each one. However your rebuttal would always be yet-another problem because the original "solution" didn't cater for some arbitrary corner case or something basic that you assume can only come from a society with a government.
E.g. "Your customers randomly decide to not pay you. That's also OK."
Answer: Have an escrow organization that both parties trust. Rebuttal: "Your escrow organization decides it doesn't like a certain legitimate business and won't accept your trade." Or "Your escrow organization's owner is buddy-buddy with your customer and he decides to not keep their part of the bargain". Okay - "contracts", followed with "but who will enforce the contracts", etc etc.
As a side note: A lot of the time libertarians and anarcho-capitalists don't "pick" lack of regulation out of practicality, but rather out of plain moral principle. A lot of what is considered "regulation" and "rule of law", when stripped of it's noble/protective aura, is just authoritarianism and bully-like behavior.
Without a monopoly of violence, you have 3 alternatives:
a) Multiple entities keeping each other in check, in perpetual competition...
b) One faction becomes more powerful than the rest and eventually assimilates the rest or turn them into vassals.
c) Factions decide to ally up and either assimilate the rest and make vassals out of them.
Basically, smaller fish gets eaten by larger fish. The world is just like a large prison where you have to either become a large entity or belong to a large alliance otherwise you're fucked.
We have had and currently have A, B and C, we just don't "see it" because it has an aura of "Democracy" and "will of the people". If we truly had freedom, it would be part of society, every government, the UN and considered a fundamental Human Right for individual groups of people to voluntarily group together and decide to "leave" their state/nation/entity/vassal/government/faction, and form their own "monopoly of violence" within their geographic area.
But we don't have that. We belong and are forced under subjugation to our individual governments without any say in the matter other than "voting" and "community participation". We can dress it up any which way we want, but we're forced into a relationship by virtue of birth and we have no option to leave.
You’re only looking at one side. Regulations can also encourage corruption - if I can’t even open my doors unless I get a permit, well, that’s plenty of incentive for whoever control that permit to ask for something to “sweeten the pie”.
Is that form of corruption a systemic problem here in the U.S.? I don’t think that it is.
On the other hand, campaign contributions are common, legal, and involve large sums of money (especially to PACs).
Systemic corruption of elected officials, resulting in de-regulation in order to benefit wealthy shareholders at the expense of the public, is more concerning to me than the possibility of low-level officials seeking bribes.
Your logic only makes sense if you equate legal fundraising to back room, illegal corruption.
To me, someone funding raising through a legal, transparent PAC might not be desirable, but it’s far less insidious than backroom dealings that pervert the rule of law.
I’m suspicious of any large transfer of wealth from an individual or organization to a politician, whether that’s through campaign donations or some other means.
It seems strange not to take the next logical step and conclude that there were some backroom dealings, especially if the politician later takes an action that is favorable to the donor.
I am also recovering from a frozen shoulder, but thankfully it was not nearly as bad as the author. This is also my second time having it. Both times have required months of PT, mostly stretching and some strength training.
As for the pain during PT, I found it helpful to talk to the physical therapist, which distracted my mind from lower-level pain. When the pain increased, I’d temporarily stop talking and free my mind of thoughts, trying to reach a near-meditative state. I’d let the pain come and go, like clouds in the sky. Some days that was easier than others. Perhaps it helped that I had already learned some meditative techniques years ago.
Unknown.
Most common in post menopausal women with an autoimmune disorder such as diabetes or thyroid problem. i.e. not me but I got it anyway.
You "recover" when your body stops recognizing the soft tissue around your shoulder as the enemy and it has a chance to heal. For most it takes 9-18 months (per shoulder) and stops when it does regardless of physical therapy. The one thing that seems to help is a cortisone shot _early_ which seems to knock about three months off the the disease's course. Shots later do not have the same effect.
Logically it is an auto immune response, to what I have no clue. Starts like any strain you don't quite remember how you got and just keeps getting worse.
If you get it in one shoulder you are very likely to get it in the other. But you are more likely to recognize it early and get that cortisone shot.
In my case, the recovery required physical therapy. My shoulders have also improved somewhat on their own over time. From what I’ve read, it’s not genetic. My shoulder injuries were each caused by a specific physical event, and then gradual loss of range occurred along with increasing pain.
Switched from Jenkins to Bamboo Server about 5 years ago. The integrations with Bitbucket, Jira, and Slack have been really useful. My team has put a lot of time into getting the most out of Bamboo, so it’s disappointing that we won’t be able to continue to build on that.
It would be nice if Atlassian open-sourced Bamboo so that we could continue using it long-term, but honestly one of the primary reasons that we’ve stuck with them is their excellent support team. Without them, our development team would be forced to diagnose and fix issues in Bamboo, which is not the best use of dev time. So I guess we’ll attempt to find alternative build software soon.
We’ll have to do some research and analysis. When we compare alternatives, product support will be one factor. There might be some commercial Jenkins support offerings out there, which would be interesting. It’s going to be a whole process that will take months to get right.
If refactoring didn’t introduce regressions, then that would be great to have someone constantly refactoring to improve the codebase. In my experience though, it often makes more work for the rest of the team, sometimes for years afterwards.
Find different ways to collaborate with others on software. Learn how to review code and how to respond when your code is critiqued. Contribute to medium-sized open source projects that are still maintained and have a fair number of users.
As for life in general: learn about personal finance. Once you’ve got a decent salary, you’ll need to know how to invest for retirement, save up for a house, pay down debt, etc.
"Contribute to medium-sized open source projects that are still maintained and have a fair number of users."
I've never contributed to an open source project and my career has evolved just fine, though.
I think this audience over stresses the need of open source contributions. It's fine if you don't want to work in the open and don't want to share your code.
Natural curiosity of open codebases is a good thing to have, though :)
I've known several excellent 9-17 coders who work, and then go home to do other things.
On my team, the PR author is ultimately responsible for their work. All review comments are considered suggestions. The Approve button is used only to indicate completion of the review. If a reviewer has a problem with the merged work, they can open a new case describing the problem.
We train all developers to have sufficient competency to work on any part of the code. If some code is too complex for a developer to understand, it is simplified. Documentation is prioritized and included as part of the work effort.
We have worked together this way for about 7 years, with high developer satisfaction and low turnover. The quality of the product has steadily improved during that time.