June 11th, 2008

yosemite

(no subject)

My dance lesson with Gail went pretty well last night. We did mostly tango, reviewing some of what we'd worked on the last time I took lessons. We did some samba also. My shoulder felt reasonably ok after the lesson. I signed up to dance with the teachers tomorrow, so we'll see how that goes.

I told Gail that I was thinking about doing a samba routine. I haven't made a final decision about it, but I'll need to because the showcase is in three months. I don't know if I'll have time for more than one lesson per week (plus the classes and parties for practice), so that gives us roughly 12x45 minutes of one-on-one instruction time.
classic cylon

(no subject)

So there's this new site, Glassdoor, where people post reviews of their current and past employers, salaries, etc. To join, you must post a review. I read a few about the usuals (Yahoo!, Google, M$, etc.) but didn't see much new; most of what's said can be found by blogging.

But there seems to be a fairly common theme that people (even who are happy with their position) don't like it when their companies become too bureaucratic and can't take chances. This is highly dependent on the project one happens to be working on, e.g. I would expect there is a lot more bureaucracy in Google AdWords than there is in Google Desktop, because the former is a primary driver of revenue. But an irony here is that bureaucracy enables risk-taking (on some other project), because it is the revenue from the former that permits the experimentation with the latter. In a startup (or a startup environment), it's implicitly "taking a chance", but OTOH, there is little margin for error. For example, the kinds of outages that have hit amazon.com over the past few days could put a startup out of business.

I guess I am biased (possibly because I know what it is like to see a lack of bureaucracy lead to a failed company), but IMO bureaucracy is needed, at least for those projects upon which the company depends.