Joining the dev group has been inevitable, but I wanted to hold out until the new chief of dev came along ( I was told January, but I guess they didn't get their budget so they have to fix their problems now )




solve: bob needs newspaper development 

given: glenn is a newspaper developer

solution: glenn does newspaper development 
 
<hr>
Simple enough, but there are restrictions on doing any sort of developement.
<p>
 
solve: glenn does development 

given: only dev does development

solution: glenn joins dev
 
<hr>
 
but bob doesnt trust dev, so...
 
 
solve: bob trusts dev 

given: bob trusts glenn

solution: glenn trusts dev

		  and

		  dev trusts glenn
 
<hr> 
So now it it gets down to the interesting part.	How to solve for mutual trust between glenn and dev?

solve: glenn trusts dev

		  dev trusts glenn

given: glenn mistrusts dev 

		  dev mistrusts glenn

solution:
 
<hr>
 
bob's desire to control compensation implies that bob doesn't trust glenn breaking the chain even earlier, than this unsolved triplet.

if bob's control over compensation builds trust, then the control should be both ways in order to be mutual.  It also folows that he should control dev's compensation.

Also, If I may argue to the extreme, consider the premise that only dev developes.  If you were to begin choking, I should not attempt to help, for that is the job of the paramedics, and I do not report to the paramedics.

Or a much less extreme analog,  let's say Glenn, Bill and Bob are sitting at a table.  The salt is behind the pepper from Bill's point of view, and so cannot be seen.  Bob asks Bill for salt.  Bill replies, he cannot give Bob any salt.
Bob, wondering why he cannot have any salt, asks Glenn for the salt.  Glenn should first ask Bill about the salt.  Glenn cannot look for the salt or offer opinions about what might seem obvious about the salt.  Glenn replies, "If Bill said no, then, no".
It could be argues that I don't know that the salt is needed for a later course of the meal, but if that were the case, rather than telling Bob there is no salt, he should explain he is saving the salt for the later course.

	THe situation, as has been explained to me in the past, is that it is my job to consult with Bill about all things I am asked to do, and to train the askers not to ask.  It is not Bill's job to ask me.

TO show that this analogy does map well to reality, consider these three instances where the premise was broken:

Bob asks about easing FF article feed integration if the site can supply its articles in NITF format.  I reply it should ease the article feed integration substantially.  The most recent rollouts validate this statement.  But I was reprimanded for this opinion.

Beth asks if her recipes can be fielded to as to be usable for the recipe apps she wanted.  I told her not quite, but more 65% could be and the remainder could be ranked as to how badly they needed human intervention.  I was reprimanded for this opinion as well.  

When dealing with large amounts of money, Ron, Bob, Beth, etc would be negligent not to seek a second opinion.  That fact that they ask me is a reflection of their trust/respect.  They could just as easily asked anyone else, including outside vendors, which I would assume they will do more of once I am in dev. 

Bob also has to be careful - by saying that I am dedicated to Newspaper, that means that others are definitely not dedicated, and opens the doors to each other division receiving dedicated developers.  THen we are back to where we started, except all of the developers for different divisions are mucking around in the same sandboxes.

But there are pluses, if this can be viewed as a promotion of sorts - I go from being an island to a plugged in entity.