3 ms·
The original critique was that 3-5 years was too little time (meaning time matters). It sounded like you were agreeing that after 3-5 years someone shouldn't be
by phamilton 10y ago
The original critique was that 3-5 years was too little time (meaning time matters). It sounded like you were agreeing that after 3-5 years someone shouldn't be senior (and implying that it should be longer).
- allengeorge 10y agoMy bad. The both of you are absolutely right. To clarify: 1. I think that 3 - 5 is too short - there's so much to learn, and a lot of experience to be gained from seeing how your designs age. 2. That said, time doesn't matter as much as engagement, problems tackled, and attitude. But - it's still conditional on 1. above. You may *think* you "get" it, but it may turn out that your great designs don't age well, etc. So, it's a combination of both. Not purely tenure, not purely attitude.