|
rvIceB wrote: Or am I really just a jerk
Not in my opinion, but I think the maybe the others are. Sounds like you need to join a different team.
|
|
|
|
|
I empathize with the "mixed feelings" you're having, and I think it's probably a sign (a good sign !) you have a capability for empathy, and a conscience, that you are so concerned with the reaction of your fellow collaborators, but ...
Without really understanding the explicit and implicit "social contract" that exists/existed that binds/bound your group together ... I'm not sure anyone can do anything other than crystal-ball gazing at this point.
Did this project ever have a written spec ? A time-table ? Milestones ?
Did the project have any formal leadership structure, and role assignments ?
Were meetings held where progress ... or lack of progress ... was discussed ?
Is it possible the project, from the beginning, was understood in very different ways by various team-members ?
Is it possible that different team members had a very different "stake" in the project ... personal commitment, conscious investment, dedication, sense of "ego" being "on the line" ?
Did you ever consider calling a meeting, or sending out an e-mail, to notify other group members that because of your need to have certain components working in order to complete your work ... and given the fact there was no progress on those components by group members responsible for those components ... that you were "unilaterally" going to finish those pending-components ?
My guess is that you "did the right thing," and that, in the long run, you will feel good about what you did, perhaps even wonder why you bothered to be concerned about what people who did not meet their responsibilities thought about you taking your responsibilities seriously.
That's only one interpretation of ... possibly infinite interpretations.
And, specific information about why the other project members did not finish their work becomes critical: were there any serious mitigating factors you may not be aware of ... now ?
Do remember that in the rear-view mirror of hindsight: things may seem farther away than they actually are.
cheers, Bill
«A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards ... as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push» Wittgenstein
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Did this project ever have a written spec ? A time-table ? Milestones ?
Sort of. We spent the first couple days jotting down what the end product should be able to do, but we were always open to expanding and including new ideas. As far as a time-table, not beyond our agreed timeframe of a month's time. I mentally had an idea of what to prioritize based on time, but nothing was written in stone.
Quote: Did the project have any formal leadership structure, and role assignments ?
No real 'leadership' position was chosen, and roles were basically just personal interests. It was a hobby project, so we had an easy going mentality to social structure...
I had the mentality of "Whatever needs done, I'll do", so I didn't opt to focus on any part in particular, but I always made sure to let someone know what I was doing at the time I was doing it.
Quote: Were meetings held where progress ... or lack of progress ... was discussed ?
Not anything formal. I made it a point to discuss the progress of the project with everyone every once in a while, but it wasn't anything set in stone. We know each other personally, but during the project we were all working in our free time.
Some of us in college, some of us working jobs.
Quote: Is it possible the project, from the beginning, was understood in very different ways by various team-members ?
I suppose that's a possibility, but it was made clear from all of us that we desparately wanted this project to simply be complete on time. Eventually, arguments on what the deadline actually was came into play as well... Possibly that lack of leadership biting us in the rear.
Quote: Is it possible that different team members had a very different "stake" in the project ... personal commitment, conscious investment, dedication, sense of "ego" being "on the line" ?
This could be a huge factor. I know for at least 2 out of the 4 of us, our motivations came from simply not wanting to waste time on a destined-to-fail project. We sort of wanted to prove to ourselves that we could hold true to a schedule and actually 'release' a product.
Quote: Did you ever consider calling a meeting, or sending out an e-mail, to notify other group members that because of your need to have certain components working in order to complete your work ... and given the fact there was no progress on those components by group members responsible for those components ... that you were "unilaterally" going to finish those pending-components ?
No, and in retrospect this would have been the best call to make. I was trying to maintain the 'laid back' work ethic while being serious about the whole ordeal. This was all more or less for fun, so I didn't want to be a hard-a$$ on everyone (I was in no position to do so anyway), but we all agreed that we wanted it to be finished.
Quote: were there any serious mitigating factors you may not be aware of ... now ?
For a couple members, yes.
One of our members works in the oil fields so he's out of town for a month or so at a time. He does however have freetime on occasion while on the job, and he did actively work on the project during that free time.
Another was finishing up college, and was working on actually moving on with his life, building a career and moving away from home. I understood this, and knew he wouldn't be very productive because of it. I didn't hold it against him or anything, what he was dealing with was much more important than our little hobby project, but I figured that if we tried to wait for him to get settled we'd miss the deadline.
Another is still in college, and is busy handling that mess. He also worked during what free time he could scrape up.
I get the feeling they have a bit of an issue being realistic (with themselves) about what they can actually produce, but maybe thats because of the lack clear expectations from our lack of leadership.
I think some kind of structure would have helped this scenario greatly, but we didn't want it to feel like a job (we have those already, you know?), and its hard to maintain both aspects.
I was trying to stress the fact that work needed to be done, but at the same time trying to be understanding about real-world issues that would be killing their productivity.
Ultimately, I decided to fill the gaps to push the project along instead of chewing people out (again, wasn't my job), and was entirely open to any changes they wanted to make including completely replacing the work I had done if they desired it.
|
|
|
|
|
If you had mutually agreed boundaries, and had assigned jobs to the various team members in advance, but you then decided "I'll do that bit as well" without consulting the person who was originally to do it then yes - that is insensitive.
I'd have spoken to the person concerned and asked if they minded first. To just do it and effectively "cut them out" from making a contribution is kinda rude - it's like saying "sod it, I don't trust those guys" from their POV.
I'd be annoyed if you just went ahead and did it to me.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Just tell them if that is the attitude they are going to take when you were simply progressing some areas as an 'idea' of how to do it when they were obviously busy, then clearly they have got lost in their own self-importance so to shove their heads up their own sunshine free zone....
edit: but you should have spoken to the individuals first....
modified 28-Dec-14 6:56am.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that nobody is being a jerk, it's just a difference of opinion. I have done something similar in the past where the deadline really did matter. The guy who got left out (due to genuine reasons) was rathr pissed off. I have come to realize since then that the journey is usually more important than the destination in many things in life, and it is better to go along with someone than to go alone.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been in a same situation with a coworker. He committed some work and it crashed the application in certain conditions. I fixed it and emailed my coworker about it. Next day at work he wasn't happy... It was a work in progress and I had no right to finish it (as I understood it was a finished issue and only after my changes did it become work in progress again  ). He undid some of the work I did and solved it in his own way (not the best way, might I add).
I'm not with the company anymore (this was just one of many incidents...).
In hindsight I guess I know what was bothering him and I guess it's what's bothering your friends as well. It's THEIR code, THEIR project, and if they want your help they'll ask you. And they expect that if you want anything done sooner or different you'll ask. What you did now is the equivalent of entering one's house uninvited and re-arranging the furniture because that's how you like it. And put that way you wouldn't like it either 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that I suppose. But I certainly don't agree...
I won't deny that I used to think the same way. Guess I've just moved on from worrying about trivial issues like that...
Its less like re-arranging furnature, and instead like purchasing furnature that you told me you were planning to get. Maybe its not the color you specifically had in mind, but I made sure not to get a vibrant hot pink at least  , and you can always throw it out when you find something better.
I didn't do what I did because I disliked it, I did it because I needed it done. It wasn't a matter of ego or personal taste, it was a matter of necessity.
Seems a bit silly to have to approach it with an 'on eggshells' mindset... But I guess that's what I'll have to do.
Suppose it's easier to change myself than it is to change the world.
|
|
|
|
|
On a project where people are volunteering their time (and I could make the same argument for employees as well, BTW, but it's particularly true of volunteerism) the mistake you guys made was right out of the gate -- setting boundaries. It's a lot more efficient and fun if you all just define the tasks but let the boundaries be really flexible, so that if someone becomes busy, someone else can pick up the slack. That way, everyone feels that they can contribute in meaningful ways and there's a sense of momentum. Conversely, what you all set up was a situation of domino-failure -- when someone can't do what they said they were going to do, they feel bad, and that makes it harder to continue contributing. Plus, the artificial boundaries makes it impossible for someone to contribute something, anything, even if it's adding some comments to someone else's code, and feeling like they are still contributing.
That's my 2c.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say I agree with all of this. I think pretty much everything described here had occurred at some point.
I never understood what the point was behind limiting ourselves to only 'section A' or 'section B'. I think the reason was some acute egotism or maybe self consciousness. They wanted a guarenteed way to say 'I was wholey responsible for X!' and given the nature of the project, the timeframe, and our work ethic, it was entirely counter productive.
The way I see it, the existance of the completed product is proof enough of all of our hard work, no matter how big or small.
I think the next time around, I'll make this point clear from the start; There was no sense in limiting ourselves and each other given our size and situation. It only led to problems...
Everyone's name is still written in the same size font in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
rvIceB wrote: I think the next time around, I'll make this point clear from the start; There was no sense in limiting ourselves and each other given our size and situation. It only led to problems...
Well, I look forward to hearing about a success! And thanks for the feedback, I'm glad it spoke to you.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Read all of the other comments first before commenting.
I think part of the problem is different perspectives of the same phrase:
rvIceB wrote: would span a month's worth of work
Does that mean the project must be completed one calendar month from the start or each person is expected to put in the hours equivalent to one month's work?
It may seem trivial, but defining expectations up front with people is important. And, if a number of them were in the middle of 'life' events (oil field, finishing college, etc), then how much time could they realistically put into the project in a calendar month?
Just my thoughts,
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Poor project management.
rvIceB wrote: who would be primarily 'responsible' for completing certain aspects of the project
That is not a good idea. I think you have found a good reason why it isn't. Tasks aren't assigned to developers before-hand; when a developer is ready to start a new task he takes ownership of that one task and does it.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it sounds like they weren't that interested in it to begin with. Which is fine, just choose a better team next time.
You seeing you needed to help out is a good thing. It sounds like they're just not used to working in a team environment. However, where you went wrong was lack of communication.
It sounds like you have a natural leadership type of personality, which is great, because you're the type of guy to get things done. But, you should have called them up and told them what your plan was since you had the time to pick up some slack.
If they refuse to do their part but still don't want you to help out, then kick them off the team. It's not like you were demanding they do it, you were willing to. Just make sure you ask them first before taking their part.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
rvIceB wrote: Was I wrong to do this?
Unfortunately, yes.
rvIceB wrote: Is this insensitive somehow?
Very.
Do the "other shoes" thing.
You have agreed to do something, and you've spent every available moment working it out in your head, but you haven't been able to find the time to actually sit down and code/unbug it. This is annoying you, because you don't like failing in your responsibilities, and you feel guilty about it.
Some a'hole who's got too much free time on his hands decides to cut you out altogether.
Tell me how you feel.
rvIceB wrote: Does anyone else think this is an issue with ego getting in the way of productivity?
If you choose to interpret it that way, then others will indeed drop you in the "a'hole" pigeonhole -- and also drop the idea of working with you.
rvIceB wrote: Or am I really just a jerk
Not at all.
rvIceB wrote: for making sure we follow our promises that were decided from the start?
OK, Now you're being a jerk.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
This blog post[^] is really into it,  its funny and somewhat interesting too. It depicts what would have happened, if Java and JavaScript were humans. 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
---
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
---
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone lit the fire to overcome the cold weather
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Plane.
Boat.
I'm not risking any trains!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
And there was also CARS........15000 trapped in the french alps due to heavy snow.
|
|
|
|
|
There aren't any major bicycle races going on today, are there? 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
too late ! I already did 2 tubes and 1 tyre on my standard 33km Sunday ride 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
