4 ms·

>who hired you on the presumption of qualifications? This whole line of thinking doesn't really apply to software development. Formal qualifications are, at be

by trprog 10y ago

>who hired you on the presumption of qualifications? This whole line of thinking doesn't really apply to software development. Formal qualifications are, at best, only required to get you a first interview. Formal software development qualifications are generally regarded as being only tangentially related to the ability to do the job.

bigger_cheese 10y ago
How do companies avoid being found negligent i.e. Could a company be sued for hiring someone grossly incompetent on the basis they did not vet the employees competence? I'd always presumed there were similar requirements (i.e open source licenses often disclaim liability for code released under them)
- trprog 10y ago
  >Could a company be sued for hiring someone grossly incompetent on the basis they did not vet the employees competence? Not sure. I have personally never heard of it but that is hardly conclusive. Its not the kind of job where individuals are out making decisions on their own as a rule. Particularly at established companies people's work likely has to pass assorted automated tests and rounds of human review and testing. And then the companies software is wrapped in extremely carefully worded licences and contracts to limit liability. Also bear in mind that software is typically produced behind closed doors. The external users of the software likely have no idea as to the identities of the humans producing the software they use. You would never know if someone incompetent was hired (assuming their poor quality work somehow got released) because you don't know if the software is being produced by 1 or 100 humans.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- di4na 10y ago
  Because noone knows how to vet effectively. And we still have no idea what "being a software engineer" mean.
- Const-me 10y ago
  Disclaimer: IANAL. Most licenses disclaim liability. 99% of all software comes with an end-user license agreement saying “we aren’t liable for anything that’s gonna happen to you because of our software”. Also, EULAs sometimes (like in MS Windows) forbid usage of the software in safety-critical applications, defined as “device or system in which a malfunction of the software would result in foreseeable risk of injury or death to any person” Other 1% of the software, legal teams underperformed and were unable to press public enough to accept similar agreements. So, in automotive, avionics and especially medical devices, users sometimes indeed sue manufacturers over faulty software. However, I’ve never heard about a process for hiring someone incompetent. People usually bring claims against companies for making a defective product, asking for compensation.
- fulafel 10y ago
  Here's one court verdict where the software counsultancy was found liable in spite of using liability disclaimers in the legalese: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=94545fff-9587-460e-ba8a-a42ad8bcbe7d http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=94545fff-9587-... It sounds unlikely that employee school papers would be the deciding factor though.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by trprog 10y ago

bigger_cheese 10y ago

How do companies avoid being found negligent i.e. Could a company be sued for hiring someone grossly incompetent on the basis they did not vet the employees competence? I'd always presumed there were similar requirements (i.e open source licenses often disclaim liability for code released under them)

trprog 10y ago
>Could a company be sued for hiring someone grossly incompetent on the basis they did not vet the employees competence? Not sure. I have personally never heard of it but that is hardly conclusive. Its not the kind of job where individuals are out making decisions on their own as a rule. Particularly at established companies people's work likely has to pass assorted automated tests and rounds of human review and testing. And then the companies software is wrapped in extremely carefully worded licences and contracts to limit liability. Also bear in mind that software is typically produced behind closed doors. The external users of the software likely have no idea as to the identities of the humans producing the software they use. You would never know if someone incompetent was hired (assuming their poor quality work somehow got released) because you don't know if the software is being produced by 1 or 100 humans.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
di4na 10y ago
Because noone knows how to vet effectively. And we still have no idea what "being a software engineer" mean.
Const-me 10y ago
Disclaimer: IANAL. Most licenses disclaim liability. 99% of all software comes with an end-user license agreement saying “we aren’t liable for anything that’s gonna happen to you because of our software”. Also, EULAs sometimes (like in MS Windows) forbid usage of the software in safety-critical applications, defined as “device or system in which a malfunction of the software would result in foreseeable risk of injury or death to any person” Other 1% of the software, legal teams underperformed and were unable to press public enough to accept similar agreements. So, in automotive, avionics and especially medical devices, users sometimes indeed sue manufacturers over faulty software. However, I’ve never heard about a process for hiring someone incompetent. People usually bring claims against companies for making a defective product, asking for compensation.
fulafel 10y ago
Here's one court verdict where the software counsultancy was found liable in spite of using liability disclaimers in the legalese: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=94545fff-9587-460e-ba8a-a42ad8bcbe7d http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=94545fff-9587-... It sounds unlikely that employee school papers would be the deciding factor though.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]